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.

 

New finds push back Homo appearance in Asia

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Source

As the information we gather grows, we continue to see new possibilities in the way humans spread over the Earth.

It appears that Homo Erectus, like all related species, may not have actually begun in Africa, but Asia.


The story of the evolution of modern humans can be a bit confusing, species-wise, with many early hominins co-existing without an obvious linear succession. But, geographically, all the action has appeared to take place in Africa, at least until the appearance of Homo erectus, which left Africa and spread globally, only to be replaced by later species of African origin: us. Over the past year or so, however, our history has become a bit more complicated, with evidence that our ancestors interbred with earlier human relatives that had already dispersed throughout Asia. Now, earlier events are also looking a bit more confused, as archeological finds in the nation of Georgia are being promoted as evidence that Homo erectus didn't even get its start in Africa.


If the species actually didn't get it's start in Africa, then ...


But the most radical interpretation has been that, if the Dmanisi skeletons look like the earliest form of Homo erectus, that's simply because they are. In this scenario, the species originated in Asia, and evolved its larger form there before going mobile, eventually returning to the Africa that its more distant ancestors left.


It will be an interesting development to say the least, and one which generates a few more questions than it answers.


According to the authors, a more central site of origin like the Caucasus also makes sense given that finds are turning up in Asia as early as 1.7 million years ago. The problem is that there's absolutely no evidence that any species, either Homo or Australopithecus, was anywhere outside of Africa before Dmanisi. And there's clearly not going to be anything older at the site, given that the oldest finds are already just above solid rock.


See: PNAS, 2011. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1106638108 (LINK)


edit on 7-6-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


And Neanderthals were in Europe as well before Humans(Homo-Sapien-Sapien) From Africa

So now we find out Homo-Erectus Is from Asia First ? Was Homo Erectus First or Homo-Sapien-Sapien?

Would this also explain the Underwater structure in Japan?


edit on 7-6-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)

Neanderthals Interbred With Humans Study Suggests- LiveScience.com


en.wikipedia.org...


The first proto-Neanderthal traits appeared in Europe as early as 600,000-350,000 years ago



Craniums
1. Gorilla 2. Australopithecus 3. Homo erectus 4. Neanderthal (La Chapelle aux Saints) 5. Steinheim Skull 6. Euhominid(Homo-Sapien-Sapien (WiseMan) Other wise known as Modern Human)



en.wikipedia.org...


The Steinheim skull is a fossilized skull of an archaic Homo sapiens or Homo heidelbergensis found in 1933 near Steinheim an der Murr (20 km north of Stuttgart, Germany). Skull of H. steinheimensis It is an estimated 250,000 to 350,000 years old.




Erectus and Egastis Human Evolution-Wikipedia


Homo erectus (H erectus) lived from about 1.8 Ma to about 70,000 years ago (which would indicate that they were probably wiped out by the Toba catastrophe; however, Homo erectus soloensis and Homo floresiensis survived it). Often the early phase, from 1.8 to 1.25 Ma, is considered to be a separate species, Homo ergaster, or it is seen as a subspecies of Homo erectus, Homo erectus ergaster.





So maybe this Chart needs to be re-arranged a bit due to the new findings..???

Purportedly the Toba Disaster wiped out Homo Erectus.
Toba Disaster



edit on 7-6-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by TheUniverse
 


That 'structure' isn't a structure. It's a geologic formation. Please, don't listen to Hancock. He's...well...I'll resist the temptation to insult him using his so easily insultable name. He's just not a good researcher nor is he actually all that well versed in any of the human-centered fields of study (anthropology, archeology, psychology, ethnography, etc). He repeatedly demonstrates his lack of understanding.

I just had to toss that out there because..well...I had to deal with a lot of that crap before I abandoned the Ancient Civilizations forum due to the preposterous levels of ignorance and woo.

As for rewriting the history...not entirely. It's more like amending it in ways that don't entirely challenge the current consensus, it's more like a set of interesting footnotes and side-stories.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Still a possibility of Underwater Structures. During the Ice Age the Sea/Ocean levels was hundreds of feet lower.



en.wikipedia.org...



According to the authors, a more central site of origin like the Caucasus also makes sense given that finds are turning up in Asia as early as 1.7 million years ago



So interesting these Homo-Erectus seemed to have lived in parts of Asia and/or Indonesia For 1.7 million years? Then does this mean many of the cities and or civilizations that could have possibly have been erected be underwater due to the large amount of land in Indonesia that is currently underwater that wasn't underwater during the Ice Ages.

These Homo-Erectus Lived through several Ice Ages in The Area it seems. If its true they were there for 1.7 million years. But since this Area of the Earth has a tropical temperate Climate. They would have been sheltered from the Extreme Weather from the North Compared to the European Neanderthals.

It seems that the Toba Disaster is what did them in. Thats just the Theory Anyways.







That 'structure' isn't a structure. It's a geologic formation. Please, don't listen to Hancock. He's...well...I'll resist the temptation to insult him using his so easily insultable name. He's just not a good researcher nor is he actually all that well versed in any of the human-centered fields of study (anthropology, archeology, psychology, ethnography, etc). He repeatedly demonstrates his lack of understanding.


Actually i wouldn't be so quick to dis-credit Graham Hancock i think he has some good ideas although some of them are on the fringe; i don't agree with everything he has to say; but its interesting non-the-less.

Provide links when trying to Assert Confirmations Of purported Structures in Japan; because saying that its a geologic formation doesn't prove it is; thats just an outright assertion. More Research is needed. Nothing you asserted is proven yet just speculated as such.

Even Articles from the Nato Geo Such as this are still blatant assertions as a good scientists always says.

More research is needed
Nat Geo Under Water Japan Structures Baffles Scientists

edit on 7-6-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TheUniverse
 


Possibility? Sure...but there's no evidence to demonstrate that it's man made. It's possible that Mt Everest is man made, just highly improbable. There's nothing within the supposed structures that points directly to them being man made.


So interesting these Homo-Erectus seemed to have lived in parts of Asia and/or Indonesia For 1.7 million years?


...no, they lived 1.7 million years ago. We know there were there at one point in a continuous settlement...but I didn't find any reference to how long that settlement lasted (probably because they don't know).



Then does this mean many of the cities and or civilizations that could have possibly have been erected be underwater due to the large amount of land in Indonesia that is currently underwater that wasn't underwater during the Ice Ages.


If you really, really, really want to stretch it...sure. But how did they build these cities without agriculture? How did they sustain their populations by hunting to the point where they could have an advanced civilization? Why is there no evidence beyond what we expect from homo erectus from previous finds?


Actually i wouldn't be so quick to dis-credit Graham Hancock i think he has some good ideas although some of them are on the fringe; i don't agree with everything he has to say; but its interesting non-the-less.


Sure, it makes a good story.



Provide links when trying to Assert Confirmations Of purported Structures in Japan; because saying that its a geologic formation doesn't prove it is; thats just an outright assertion. More Research is needed. Nothing you asserted is proven yet just speculated as such.


...saying that a rock formation is natural is the null position. The vast majority of rock formations in the sea are natural, so it is hardly an extraordinary claim to say that it's nothing more than a rock formation. I'm not making a counter-claim that it couldn't be artificial, I'm merely making the claim that the lengthy period of study (somewhere more than 5 years for sure because I was addressing the issue when I first joined ATS) has yet to provide a single shred of evidence pointing towards it being man made.

Actually, looking at the article you provided it's nearly two decades of research.



Even Articles from the Nato Geo Such as this are still blatant assertions as a good scientists always says.


...National Geographic is a journalistic source. It's one hell of a source at times, but it's still journalism, it is not science.

If you want, I can look through a bunch of science journals next week (I'm about to hit my workload peak due to exams and assignments).



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by TheUniverse
 


Possibility? Sure...but there's no evidence to demonstrate that it's man made. It's possible that Mt Everest is man made, just highly improbable. There's nothing within the supposed structures that points directly to them being man made.


Thats an extremely horrible and skewed analog to use.



...no, they lived 1.7 million years ago. We know there were there at one point in a continuous settlement...but I didn't find any reference to how long that settlement lasted (probably because they don't know).

"
According to the authors, a more central site of origin like the Caucasus also makes sense given that finds are turning up in Asia as early as 1.7 million years ago
"




If you really, really, really want to stretch it...sure. But how did they build these cities without agriculture? How did they sustain their populations by hunting to the point where they could have an advanced civilization? Why is there no evidence beyond what we expect from homo erectus from previous finds?




Toba Catastrophe



...saying that a rock formation is natural is the null position. The vast majority of rock formations in the sea are natural, so it is hardly an extraordinary claim to say that it's nothing more than a rock formation. I'm not making a counter-claim that it couldn't be artificial, I'm merely making the claim that the lengthy period of study (somewhere more than 5 years for sure because I was addressing the issue when I first joined ATS) has yet to provide a single shred of evidence pointing towards it being man made.

Actually, looking at the article you provided it's nearly two decades of research.




Still waiting for those links To prove 100%



That 'structure' isn't a structure. It's a geologic formation. Please, don't listen to Hancock.


Since you seem to be so sure it is a geologic Formation! But yet nothing has proved it is or isn't yet.

edit on 8-6-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 05:09 AM
link   
reply to post by TheUniverse
 


My analogy was pretty good, considering that it's a basic outline of the skeptical approach to any claim...which is just how science works.

And read it again:


According to the authors, a more central site of origin like the Caucasus also makes sense given that finds are turning up in Asia as early as 1.7 million years ago


There's no mention of continuous settlement over that period, merely that it would be the earliest find. If there were settlements continuously over 1.7 million years they would extend into written history.


Still waiting for those links To prove 100%


I'm sorry, but the burden is on the individual asserting that a solid stone formation on the bottom of the sea is man-made, not on the person who thinks that it, like the vast majority of rock on the sea floor, is a natural formation.

Please, stop trying shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 08:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 

Interesting.

It should be pointed out that the idea of Homo erectus originating in Asia is not new; on the contrary, it was the generally agreed scientific view until quite recently. It is the so-called Out of Africa hypothesis, effectively proven by advances in molecular biology during the 1980s, that is new. The origins and distribution of Homo erectus form no part of that hypothesis, which applies only to modern humans.

Specifically,

  1. Homo erectus is not regarded an ancestor of modern humans. We come from a different branch of the hominid family.

  2. Homo erectus migration from Africa is thought to have begun about two million years ago. We, on the other hand, came out of Africa about a million years ago.

  3. If in fact erectus evolved in Asia and migrated back to Africa, this has no implications for modern humans.

I would like to add, for the benefit of the, ah, ‘race-conscious’ contingent on ATS, that the Dmansi finds offer no support whatever to the highly unscientific view that different strains of Homo, evolving in different parts of the world, interbred to create different ‘races’ of the species Homo Sapiens. The question is merely whether the Dmansi erectus population was ancestral to other erectus populations or not. Homo Sapiens doesn’t come into the picture at all.


edit on 8/6/11 by Astyanax because: /



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Never asserted these were man-made like you asserted these were geologic formations; you're skewing my words. I only postulated they were man made.

On the matter of the settlements i never said any settlement and/or civilizations ,structures persisted for 1.7 million years; I wonder where are you getting these assertions from.?

Only to dis-credit that which you do not agree with.

edit on 8-6-2011 by TheUniverse because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


I've always prefered the out of asia theory.. or at least between africa and asia. Discoveries like the hobbits also shows how quickly evolutionary mutations can arise.
edit on 13-6-2011 by riley because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 02:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheUniverse
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

On the matter of the settlements i never said any settlement and/or civilizations ,structures persisted for 1.7 million years; I wonder where are you getting these assertions from.?


Nor did he say you said that. My guess that's it's from this. But I could be wrong.

So interesting these Homo-Erectus seemed to have lived in parts of Asia and/or Indonesia For 1.7 million years?

edit on 6/13/2011 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by riley
I've always prefered the out of asia theory.. or at least between africa and asia. Discoveries like the hobbits also shows how quickly evolutionary mutations can arise.


How so? Homo florensis is most likely related to homo erectus, it is doubtful that they are a seperate species, and their size is probably due to environmental adaptation, exacerbated by isolation and specialised diet. Selection is the most probable explanation for their size, not mutation. Mutation is not often a deciding factor in species success just in their specialisation. Although they had a smaller cranial capacity to us, they are believed to have been as 'self aware' as we are, and therefore more than capably intelligent. Their weak chins suggest they may not have had as highly developed language skills, much like the Neaderthals due to their lack of a Hyoid bone. This may, like the Neaderthals have factored into their extinction as a seperate species and their size would have been prohibitive to successful interbreeding, even assuming genetic compatibility. Hence why they did not succeed. Millions of mutation may occur, but it is only through selection, even if it takes place in a lab, that they have any chance of being reproduced in subsequent generations, and thousands more for that to become the dominant characteristic.

I am not opposed to the notion of multi-locations for the evolution of hominids, however, the factors that determine success of a species on a global level, such as modern man has achieved, seems to largely have come from the conditions that Africa supports, and that there has clearly been far more wide spread migratory waves of species from that area than has been previously thought. I would be surprised therefore if this does not just represent a more extensive spread of Australopithicine, and the possibility of extinctions events having left pockets of survival cut off and far away from 'home'.



posted on Jun, 14 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Pythein
 


Australian aborigines came through asia much later on but prior to that asia and africa were once part of the same land mass. We also had land bridges and ice ages influencing migratory habbits. It doesn't have to be one or the other. I also don't see why a seperate species can't evolve from homo erectus (neandathals are meant to be seperate but there's of course evidence of interbreeding) and "evolutionary adaption" and "mutation" is really semantics. If you like I can say evolutionary driven mutations.

I just posted really for "well isn't that interesting" sakes.

..because it is very interesting.

edit on 14-6-2011 by riley because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join