Myanmar fossil find turns human history on its head

I've been more and more convinced lately that if it's not Africa, then it's Israel. 'Israel' has a relatively stable geological history in relation to Pangaea's parting, which may have provided the best conditions for complexity.

This would also explain why they're finding early fossils in countries like Eurasia and so many other places that resemble a 'palm' distribution.

Why isn't anyone talking about the mongoloid?... I like the south central china cradle idea...

Originally posted by petrus4
I think those of us with half a brain, have been aware that mainstream paleontology is a large, steaming pile, for quite some time now.

I'm sure you are.

Whereas those of us with a full brain tend to go with hundreds of years of science and painstakingly collected evidence.

Seriously though, what does "mainstream palaeontology" even mean? Is there some other versions of palaeontology? Dug up any fossils recently?

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Originally posted by petrus4
I think those of us with half a brain, have been aware that mainstream paleontology is a large, steaming pile, for quite some time now.

I'm sure you are.

Whereas those of us with a full brain tend to go with hundreds of years of science and painstakingly collected evidence.

Seriously though, what does "mainstream palaeontology" even mean? Is there some other versions of palaeontology? Dug up any fossils recently?

There is street paleontology which collects chicken bones and attempts to determine the price of pop corn at Walmarts...

There is Prussian paleontology which is concerned about trying to find the bones of every last ancestor of the Kaiser

There is also So Lin Paleontology but modesty doesn't allow me to touch on that subject

Originally posted by Hanslune
Discovery of ancient anthropod may change how we view the development of man's earlier ancestors. The story in the article is a bit overblown, as it notes that the same creature has been found both in Africa and Asia.

However it is interesting in it proposes that our ancestors evolved not in Africa but Asia then moved back there in the time frame noted

The birthplace of the human race is Asia - our earliest ancestors came to Asia in a huge migration 37-38 million years ago, before they evolved into present-day apes and humans

Not only does Afrasia help seal the case that anthropoids first evolved in Asia, it also tells us when our anthropoid ancestors first made their way to Africa, where they continued to evolve into apes and humans,’ says Chris Beard, Carnegie Museum of Natural History palaontologist.

See the link below for a discussion of the chart above


Article

That would actually make much more sense. If we look at the different cultures, the Asians are more advanced, more intelligent, more "everything" and civilization hasn't really thrived in Africa other than around Egypt. The further south you go on the continent, the more "uncivilized" you get. So yeah, it would make much more sense if Asia has been "evolving" longer than any other continent based on intelligence alone.... or at least the way we measure intelligence

Originally posted by MysterX
I think the point Thunderheart is making OP, is that very clever people with titles and letters before and after their names, have decreed one scientific fact after another, had it written into school text books, called it absolute truth for decade after decade, argued strongly with those who had the gall to dissent....only for another set of very clever people, with titles and letters before and after their names, to come along a while later and pronounce something completely different as the fact and absolute truth, who in turn will argue strongly with those who have the gall to dissent....

And all it would take would be simple humility...a statement added by both sets of very clever people to the tune of 'we don't know for certain...' or 'As far as we can reasonably tell...'.

Leaving the notion that current knowledge is to be considered absolute fact out from any mention of scientific 'discovery' or principle, would be the really smart thing to do.

Physics 'facts and principles' are probably another area where 'as far as we know' would probably be a wise addition too.

Science isn't the great and powerful Oz, it's not a "thing", it's a process. It's a method of looking at the given evidence and coming to a conclusion based on that evidence and is subject to change with new evidence.
Science isn't this all-powerful force that is some kind of God and it doesn't oppose God...or support God. It's a process, not a thing. It's a method of investigation carried out in a logical way, not a big book that holds all the secrets to the universe without question.
Science is the way we answer questions by exploring and testing. It's the way we gather information to support or refute the premise we make. Look at all the branches of science, they involve "the study of..." not "the answers to...".
The biggest problem is that the general population doesn't comprehend what Science is and how it is used so they attribute God-like powers to it then start attacking it because it doesn't make it rain...

reply to post by PurpleChiten


It is possible that the 'racial' characteristics we assign to 'whites', 'yellows' and 'blacks' may be explained by the infusion of Neanderthal and Denisovian DNA


Or it may not

Originally posted by Hanslune
reply to post by PurpleChiten

 

It is possible that the 'racial' characteristics we assign to 'whites', 'yellows' and 'blacks' may be explained by the infusion of Neanderthal and Denisovian DNA


Or it may not

They always told us before that it had more to do with climate and geographical region... but it may have some genetic factors too with the new data we've gotten over the last couple of decades

reply to post by schuyler


Its more like the missing link, but from the other end!

Originally posted by PurpleChiten


They always told us before that it had more to do with climate and geographical region... but it may have some genetic factors too with the new data we've gotten over the last couple of decades

'They"? In a way the scientific consensus was correct the old theory was that HSS moved to those regions, and evolved the characteristics we classify as 'race'. The new evidence suggests that an earlier movment of 'humans' moved out into those regions, evolved different traits and then past those changes to a new wave of migration from Africa.

I would hazard a guess that it will turn out to be a combo of both theories, dna from HSN and HSD modified the HSS genome but that regional specialization also occurred - as per most new discoveries, give it 10-15 years to get batted around. I would also suggest that a study of people who had both HSN & HSD materials might be interesting