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.

 

Pottery invented in China to cook food and brew alcohol

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune

New fossils suggest: Out of Asia


It remains an open question how early anthropoids actually migrated from Asia to Africa. Back then, the two continents were separated by a more extensive version of the modern Mediterranean Sea, called the Tethys Sea. Early anthropoids may have either swum from island to island from Asia to Africa, or possibly have been carried on naturally occurring rafts of logs and other material washed out to sea by floods and storms. Other animal groups apparently migrated from Asia to Africa at this time as well, such as rodents and extinct piglike animals known as anthracotheres, Jaeger said.


Compromising truth for profit and ego's isn't an ethical approach to scientific research or the teaching of.
edit on 30-6-2012 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth

Compromising truth for profit and ego's isn't an ethical approach to scientific research or the teaching of



Although fossils unearthed in Egypt have long suggested that Africa was the cradle for anthropoids, other bones revealed in the last 15 years or so raised the possibility that Asia may be their birthplace.


It's another theory and far from proven or accepted by consensus

If I understand the quote from you above and the one example you gave, are you suggesting that its not ethical for scientists to NOT immediately switch to the 'out of Asia' theory of the 'birthplace' of anthropods, because it has been proposed?

I have to admit I'm not getting your point



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I said 'science' making claims such as 'oldest', 'biggest' etc can be misleading, especially since new findings are made often. I gave the 'out of Africa' and 'out of Asia' as an example. You disputed the 'out of Asia' theory so I gave information on this, it is at least as, or even more valid than the Africa theory as it explains both theories whereas the Africa theory only covers Africa and doesn't consider the Asian finds that predate the African. Then you asked about landmass, I gave Sundaland information as an example of a sunken continent, and a landscape glacially altered during the evolution of humankind. Sunda continent is the likely place for human origins in the Asia theory.



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 07:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I said 'science' making claims such as 'oldest', 'biggest' etc can be misleading, especially since new findings are made often. I gave the 'out of Africa' and 'out of Asia' as an example.


'Science' isn't making those claims, again its the individual scientists, if you have an issue with their use of media you'll need to address that to the scientists in question


You disputed the 'out of Asia' theory so I gave information on this, it is at least as, or even more valid than the Africa theory as it explains both theories whereas the Africa theory only covers Africa and doesn't consider the Asian finds that predate the African.


Out of africa usually refers to hominins not anthropods, in the way you are using it, we are misunderstanding each others use of the term. Mine is 'Hominins out of Africa'


Then you asked about landmass,


Sorry no I didn't, I didn't understand what your second sentence meant, I asked for clarification of what you said, nor for evidence of 'x'.




edit on 30/6/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I already said 'science' as in scientific community which includes scientists, and no I do not need to contact any particular scientist just because I mentioned a generalisation on ATS.

Out of Africa and Out of Asia theories isn't just referring to hominids, it refers to the ORIGINS of humanity.

You asked for clarification on my point about landmass, I gave an explanation and examples so yes you asked about landmass.

Also, I have mada valid points and seems like you are pedantically arguing, which is time wasting. The points I have made are clear.
edit on 30-6-2012 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth


I already said 'science' as in scientific community which includes scientists, and no I do not need to contact any particular scientist just because I mentioned a generalisation on ATS.


Your generalization noted


Out of Africa and Out of Asia theories isn't just referring to hominids, it refers to the ORIGINS of humanity.


Sorry no, OOA refers to


[EX]
In paleoanthropology, the recent African origin of modern humans, frequently dubbed the "Out of Africa" theory, is the most widely accepted model describing the origin and early dispersal of anatomically modern humans.[1] The theory is called the (Recent) Out-of-Africa model in the popular press, and academically the recent single-origin hypothesis (RSOH), Replacement Hypothesis, and Recent African Origin (RAO) model.
[/EX]


You asked for clarification on my point about landmass, I gave an explanation and examples so yes you asked about landmass.


Nope sorry I didn't I ask you about 'landmass' I asked you to clarify a confused sentence where I didn't understand what you were talking about


Also, I have mada valid points and seems like you are pedantically arguing, which is time wasting. The points I have made are clear.


Except to the people trying to figure out what the heck you are talking about

I'll summary your position, you appear to believe that our earliest mammal ancesters the ancestors we refer to as the anthropoids came from 'asia'. Great theory, good luck with that
edit on 1/7/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Go back and read my first post, then the second then the rest, try to understand the very clear points I have made. The information is very very clear.

I won't be duped into arguing about things I didn't say just because another person can't face being wrong.

If you reply to this don't expect any answer.



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by theabsolutetruth
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Go back and read my first post, then the second then the rest, try to understand the very clear points I have made. The information is very very clear.

I won't be duped into arguing about things I didn't say just because another person can't face being wrong.

If you reply to this don't expect any answer.


Wrong about what? You are saying there is new theory that anthropoids may have come from Asia instead of Africa, great, the term OOA refers to hominins in common useage. You appear to rather confused? lol



posted on Jul, 1 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   
www.newscientist.com...

en.wikipedia.org...



The primary alternative hypothesis is recent African origin of modern humans, which contends that modern humans arose in Africa around 100–200,000 years ago, moving out of Africa around 50–60,000 years ago to replace archaic human forms without interbreeding.


news.discovery.com...


Previous studies, such as the International HapMap Project, which created a comprehensive catalog of human genetic variation, examined common genetic variation in populations across the globe, and concluded that average genetic variation between a person in Asia, Europe or Africa was essentially identical. The current study raises the possibility that Europeans and Asians, who include Neanderthal DNA, may be slightly more distinct from Africans than previously appreciated -- a difference at the DNA sequence level that could not be seen with the resolution of the HapMap.


Believing mainstream theories that are highly speculative and that are crumbling under new findings is being naive.

ROA is unlikely, Africans don't have Neandertal DNA and non Africans do, including Asia where Neandertals aren't known to have resided. It would suggest an unlikely complete removal of an African gene pool, the dots on ROA don't join.




top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join