​History rewritten, with Europe the birthplace of mankind

According to this article, life may have arisen in Europe not Africa. The long-standing belief that Africa is where life started is now being challenged.

Up until now, experts have believed human lineage split from apes some 7 million years ago in Africa. But now scientists have traced the first hominid species to Europe instead some 7.2 million years ago. An international team of researchers shook up the science books with two studies published Monday in the journal Plos One. Their findings are based on two fossils of species discovered in Greece and Bulgaria.

Interesting...........science books will have to be re-written if correct. What says ATS?

www.cnet.com...

a reply to: lostbook

I don't think anyone can truly determine the "birthplace" of man. Unless it turns out to be another planet or something. There's not enough evidence to really say. Just some unproven hypotheses.

Was just reading this one in the Telegraph . Interesting, though am not so sure yet, needs more information, not only being there's a lot of evidence and possible DNA already saying otherwose. Gonna have to go with this;

However some experts were more skeptical about the findings.

Retired anthropologist and author Dr Peter Andrews, formerly at the Natural History Museum in London, said: "It is possible that the human lineage originated in Europe, but very substantial fossil evidence places the origin in Africa, including several partial skeletons and skulls.

"I would be hesitant about using a single character from an isolated fossil to set against the evidence from Africa."

The Abstract

Why couldn't human beings have evolved in different places at different times? Why do people think that we all come from one man and one woman? That would be one explanation for the major differences in the uniqueness of humans. It would explain the difference in physical characteristics that is obvious between the different cultures.

a reply to: dreamingawake

Because of Several? Only several? If this man clings to an idea with only several items to show as proof, then he is not very open minded.

"Porch Monkey." I'm taking it back!

originally posted by: 3daysgone
Why couldn't human beings have evolved in different places at different times? Why do people think that we all come from one man and one woman? That would be one explanation for the major differences in the uniqueness of humans. It would explain the difference in physical characteristics that is obvious between the different cultures.

It's not the common view that there was one man or one woman. It would have been several populations of apelike animals that split at some time around 7mya.

The population that got removed from the enviroment had to change habits to adapt to new conditions. The population that stayed in the agreeable enviroment had no reason to change their food gathering/preparing habits, or their mating habits, or their shelter seeking habits, social negotiation, etc. but it's important that these populations do not have mating access to eachother. Over millions of years, one population can change drastically from another. Also the population that stays in their comfortable enviroment, doesn't even change very much. That is why we have changed so much, but apes, sharks, and many other species that are still doing the same things for millions of years, don't look very different. There was no enviromental pressure for them to change their habits drastically enough to manifest changes in their breeding habits or at least mate selection habits. Also, apes have a mating dynamic of one male with many females, which homogenizes the gene pool drastically, so you would not expect much diversity.

originally posted by: 3daysgone
a reply to: dreamingawake

Because of Several? Only several? If this man clings to an idea with only several items to show as proof, then he is not very open minded.

Several more than two that the OP shares as the claim.
He doesn't mention genetics.
If a Caucasian European has a DNA test it will show markers that are consistent "with out of Africa".

Abstract Background
Anthropological and genetic data agree in indicating the African continent as the main place of origin for anatomically modern humans. However, it is unclear whether early modern humans left Africa through a single, major process, dispersing simultaneously over Asia and Europe, or in two main waves, first through the Arab Peninsula into southern Asia and Oceania, and later through a northern route crossing the Levant.

One source

originally posted by: 3daysgone
Why couldn't human beings have evolved in different places at different times? Why do people think that we all come from one man and one woman? That would be one explanation for the major differences in the uniqueness of humans. It would explain the difference in physical characteristics that is obvious between the different cultures.

You're partially right. 'Humans' have arisen in different places and times, but the fossil evidence strongly suggests they radiated outwards from Africa. The popular public idea is that we evolved in Africa and migrated out to other lands in a one sustained wave. The popular science view is there were diverse populations in Africa and some migrated out in waves. An important factor is some of those people went back into Africa and their descendants migrated out again. The popular idea could be renamed 'The In and Out and In and Out of Africa Theory.'

We're living in exciting times. Only 20 years ago, we assumed Neanderthals went extinct through stupidity and being outgunned by us. Now we know the survived in our gene pool. Even our family tree has been growing to include not only Neanders, but the Floriensis and Denisovans.

Another 20 years and who knows what we'll know?

a reply to: lostbook

Allow me to explain what is really happening here.

‘Humans’ — that is, sentient animals that walk on their hind legs, use tools and fire, and (probably) had language — emerged about two million years ago. There were more than one species, and over those two million years there was also some interbreeding between the more closely related species. Today there is only one species of humans left, our own. Evolution did that, and it all happened in Africa.

All human species originally evolved from apes. These apes didn’t have tools, fire or language. But, for four or five million years preceding the emergence of the first ‘human’, they were more or less bipedal.

For all that, they were apes: partially sentient animals, like dogs or horses. Tiny brains. Most definitely not human.

It’s believed that the family tree of those ancestral apes branched off from that of the other great apes (like gorillas and chimpanzees) about 7 million years ago. We don’t know on which continent this happened. For a long time it was assumed that the continent was Africa, because that is where the human race was later born. But in the Nineties (IIRC), some fossil finds in Asia suggested that maybe the animal ancestors of humanity spent some millions of years there before moving to Africa where their descendants eventually became human.

Now, it seems, we are finding evidence that they may also have spent some time in Europe.

But please understand the difference in time, and what it implies. This archaeological find is about seven-million-year-old apes. It does not contradict the Out of Africa theory, which applies to humans, as loosely defined in my first paragraph. These weren’t like Denisovans or Neanderthals. They were animals.

And for those at the back of the class: sure, they may have been blond and blue-eyed. Maybe. Blond, blue-eyed apes.

a reply to: Astyanax

Seriously, you beat me to the punch.

Anyone with access to computer can wright anythin they want. Truth is nonody dont know where we come from. Oh and white people are more likely mutated arabs, who are mix of asians and africans.

a reply to: Indigohues

Well, you might want to correct some of the errors I made in my effort to simplify things. For example, human evolution didn’t all take place in Africa. There was some interbreeding between H. Sapiens and other species (Neanderthals, Denisovans) that may have taken place in Eurasia. But the ancestors of all the interbreeding species most certainly did come out of Africa.

Also, chimps have pretty big brains. But that is not to say that their ancestors, or the common ancestor of chimps and humans, had big brains too. They didn’t.

a reply to: Pandaram

Uh, oh helll no!

That is so wrong its actually hilarous

a reply to: Pandaram

Anyone with access to computer can wright anythin they want.

But some of them can’t spell, which is a pretty reliable sign that they don’t know what they’re talking about.

a reply to: cenpuppie

That is so wrong its actually hilarous

Tell us what’s right.

a reply to: lostbook
Much depends on the definition of "hominid".
They may be achieving that result by defining "hominid", for practical purposes, as "the creature that first appears in Europe". Then it's a circular argument.

originally posted by: 3daysgone
Why couldn't human beings have evolved in different places at different times? Why do people think that we all come from one man and one woman? That would be one explanation for the major differences in the uniqueness of humans. It would explain the difference in physical characteristics that is obvious between the different cultures.

Because it doesn't work like that, the observable differences while dramatic to some is of little consequences to scientist, there is no dramatic uniqueness to all modern humans, on all continents one can observe variations in phenotype due to micro evolution, culture and physical characteristics have nothing to do with each other.

originally posted by: 3daysgone
Why couldn't human beings have evolved in different places at different times? Why do people think that we all come from one man and one woman? That would be one explanation for the major differences in the uniqueness of humans. It would explain the difference in physical characteristics that is obvious between the different cultures.

They do know this. And there is more and more evidence. But considering Africa has literally been almost unchanged for billions of years in the context of plate tectonics it makes sense that the initial and oldest ancestors came from Africa. I forgot the technical name for it, but Africa sits upon one of these massive rock like structures that has not moved, while all others have sort of moved around it.
It's only recently in earths history that Africa is changing with the Somali rift valley starting to split.

Edit: Found what they were called. Craton

Well, the racists will be happy about this one, if it pans out. It's way premature right now.