How Early Humans Migrated into Europe: The Origins of Our Ancient Ancestors

Basically these Scientists made some reckless speculations about where Man originated from, and they did it without the slightest consideration that maybe, just maybe, Human beings were bred here by ET's or even a Higher primate Alien, yet human species that traveled to Earth from another Planet, Moon (Titan) or Solar System.

We could have been bred elsewhere as well, then brought here and put into different areas in order to see how we would react and evolve in different climates here on Planet Earth. Wow, that makes more sense, but I am not saying that is a fact, just a theory of mine.

The Human origins starting in Africa assumption as the one all, be all fact of the matter? = Epic fail. That is only if people believe that we evolved from Apes, which I personally do not believe whatsoever. Also, There are many Primates that have evolved, not proven either, in The Central American area, and South American continent.

So what is it then? Did the Monkeys from Africa somehow make their way all the way up and across far north Asia (Russia) and then cross the so-called ancient land bridge near Alaska and then move down through North America until they finally made it to central and South America where it was warm enough for them to live?

Could they even endure those temperatures along the way? Answer = Nope!

These people have an agenda, so think outside the box. Better yet, just think for yourself. ~$heopleNation

Originally posted by SheopleNation
Basically these Scientists made some reckless speculations about where Man originated from, and they did it without the slightest consideration that maybe, just maybe, Human beings were bred here by ET's or even a Higher primate Alien, yet human species that traveled to Earth from another Planet, Moon (Titan) or Solar System.

We could have been bred elsewhere as well, then brought here and put into different areas in order to see how we would react and evolve in different climates here on Planet Earth. Wow, that makes more sense, but I am not saying that is a fact, just a theory of mine.

The Human origins starting in Africa assumption as the one all, be all fact of the matter? = Epic fail. That is only if people believe that we evolved from Apes, which I personally do not believe whatsoever. Also, There are many Primates that have evolved, not proven either, in The Central American area, and South American continent.

So what is it then? Did the Monkeys from Africa somehow make their way all the way up and across far north Asia (Russia) and then cross the so-called ancient land bridge near Alaska and then move down through North America until they finally made it to central and South America where it was warm enough for them to live?

Could they even endure those temperatures along the way? Answer = Nope!

These people have an agenda, so think outside the box. Better yet, just think for yourself. ~$heopleNation

Fascinating that your rebuttal of "reckless speculation" is... reckless speculation. your post is littered with what ifs, maybe's, could possibly's and I personally believe's. Science on the other hand follows evidence, tests hypothesis and attempts to replicate results in independent labs. So no, there isn't anywhere near the level of speculation you seem to believe there is. Something else that's not speculative is your assertion we have evolved from apes, or at leqast that science makes that claim. The reality is that we ARE apes. An ape in simpler terms is a monkey with no tail. There are 5 members of the great ape family. Chimpanzee, bonobo, orangutan, gorillas and humans. as for how new world monkeys came to be where they are now, it had nothing to do with Beringea. I would implore you to look into continental drift and the locations of the continents 30 million years ago. It won't change your mind I'm sure but it should give you a better idea of how primates were able to move from different areas. Understanding how drastically the northern hemisphere changed at the end of the Miocene would also help shape your view especially reading how Europe was at the time more like southern Africa is now and there were large apes, much like the African gorillas currently living,who went extinct at the end of the Miocene. But I'm certain your mind is made up so take it as you wish.

Originally posted by peter vlar
Fascinating that your rebuttal of "reckless speculation" is... reckless speculation. your post is littered with what ifs, maybe's, could possibly's and I personally believe's.

Well that is why I said this quote below, ready........set......and go!

"that makes more sense, but I am not saying that is a fact, just a theory of mine."

First of all, calm down and take a deep breath. You see, people have opinions here, and those opinions vary all the time. So I would suggest that you adapt to the way things work around here, which is don't attack the messenger, attack the message.

Science on the other hand follows evidence, tests hypothesis and attempts to replicate results in independent labs. So no, there isn't anywhere near the level of speculation you seem to believe there is. Something else that's not speculative is your assertion we have evolved from apes, or at leqast that science makes that claim. The reality is that we ARE apes. An ape in simpler terms is a monkey with no tail. There are 5 members of the great ape family. Chimpanzee, bonobo, orangutan, gorillas and humans.

You do not have 100% proof that we humans evolved from Apes, nor do they. So until you do, I will believe otherwise. We humans are from The Universe, not some jungle. However yes, that is reckless speculation by myself as well, because I can't prove that it is the truth.

as for how new world monkeys came to be where they are now, it had nothing to do with Beringea. I would implore you to look into continental drift and the locations of the continents 30 million years ago.

I have, and I don't believe that they once fit all together in a puzzle like some mad men have suggested. Then again, other mad men have suggested that God created the World in 7 days and forgot to mention or even create the Dinosaurs. Go figure.

It won't change your mind

Now you're making reckless assumptions, just state your case and forget about what you think will change my mind or not. Maybe you will sway me a bit though, who really knows? = Not you yet.

I'm sure but it should give you a better idea of how primates were able to move from different areas. Understanding how drastically the northern hemisphere changed at the end of the Miocene would also help shape your view especially reading how Europe was at the time more like southern Africa is now and there were large apes, much like the African gorillas currently living,who went extinct at the end of the Miocene.

You still have not explained how Monkeys migrated to Central and South America, but I enjoy having this conversation with you, so let's keep it civil my friend.

But I'm certain your mind is made up so take it as you wish.

There you go again, more reckless assumptions. Who really knows what tomorrow will bring? ~$heopleNation

reply to post by SheopleNation


If I came off as brash or uncivil I do apologize as it wasn't my intent. Ill be glad to address your points but its story time for my youngest so I will return later to give you my best explanation. I will admit though that for me half the fun of science is not knowing all the answers and helping to fill in the gaps by following the evidence.

Originally posted by peter vlar
If I came off as brash or uncivil I do apologize as it wasn't my intent. Ill be glad to address your points but its story time for my youngest so I will return later to give you my best explanation. I will admit though that for me half the fun of science is not knowing all the answers and helping to fill in the gaps by following the evidence.

Not a problem, sometimes it's hard to judge another person's tone when on an internet forum. Hope the story is good, I will be telling one myself soon as well. ~$heopleNation

Originally posted by SheopleNation

Originally posted by peter vlar
If I came off as brash or uncivil I do apologize as it wasn't my intent. Ill be glad to address your points but its story time for my youngest so I will return later to give you my best explanation. I will admit though that for me half the fun of science is not knowing all the answers and helping to fill in the gaps by following the evidence.

Not a problem, sometimes it's hard to judge another person's tone when on an internet forum. Hope the story is good, I will be telling one myself soon as well.

We all have already witnessed you doing exactly that right here in this thread.

Harte

reply to post by SheopleNation


Look, I'm not one to blow smoke so lets just cut to the chase. There really is no definitive answer as to how new world monkeys arrived here. There are 3 possible origins. Africa, North America and Antarctica. North America is the least likely jumping off point. Antarctica is slightly more possible but untestable as a hypothesis in lieu of the difficulty in locating fossils under the ice. Africa however is highly likely based on what we currently know about the Oligocene era. In the late Oligocene there was a sharp drop in ocean levels making the rafting/island hopping hypothesis much more feasible than most would like to think as well as the fact that South America ad Africa were approximately 1000 miles closer than they are now. Also there is a morphological characteristic that links the platyrrhines( first new world monkeys) with the Oligocene parapithecids of Africa. Both the parapithecids and extinct and extant platyrrhines show extensive postorbital closure, which is not found in primates from North America. Both the genetic and morphological data indicate an African origin. But the short answer is that we don't actually know for certain how they made it from A to B.

Not believing in continental drift doesn't make it untrue. There are numerous fossils found in South America Antarctica Australia and Southern Africa but its the Glosopterus(a plant) that seals the deal. Animals could have the potential to migrate vast distances but the plants rely mostly on wind and the occasional scavenger to moe from one place to another therefore they must have been in a similar habitation zone at the same time.

Finally, that we are apes is an undeniable fact. The proof is in the pudding or rather the DN as well as evidence of telomeres insides IIRC Chromosome 1. Telomeres are never supposed to be found in a chromosome only on the ends indicating that at some point in our past we split off from an earlier ape ancestor and the genes either changed or failed to separate.

As with many things evolution is about stepping back and looking at the big picture. Calling it out as untrue at this point is about the same as telling a child they don't know what they're doing with a puzzle because you only notice that they've barely got the corners together but nobody has looked at the picture on the box. We know a great deal about our past. There is probably much more that we don't yet know. But blaming anthropologists for not having the complete picture when nobody seems to understand how rare fossilization actually is, to me, is mind numbing. The truth is that the fossil record is incomplete and the farther back we go the bigger the gaps get. That's a function of geology as opposed to a symptom of being wrong. That doesn't mean I'm right either. Though I'm pretty damned sure of myself! I'm certainly open to evidence to the contrary but its never forthcoming. Not yet at least. Just another aside, in science we actually don't mind being wrong sometimes. Seeing where we went wrong often puts us on the correct path or gets us to look in a direction we may not have considered previously and is a beneficial part of the process.

reply to post by Harte


I never suggested that there was any concrete proof of my theories. What a great contribution to the topic you have made. ~$heopleNation

reply to post by peter vlar


Well I respect what you're saying, but still beg to differ. Happens around here all the time though. ~$heopleNation

(deleted)

Originally posted by SheopleNation
reply to post by Harte

 

I never suggested that there was any concrete proof of my theories. What a great contribution to the topic you have made.

~$heopleNation

Though it wasn't meant for you to enjoy, I'm glad you did.

Harte

reply to post by Harte


Well I must say I found his mix of speculation and definite statements musing. Oh technically he said he didn't have facts for his theory but what about his statements about those 'reckless' scientists?

Originally posted by Hanslune
In Slayer's link there is this link - don't miss it

A tad technical but it has some interesting info on human movements in Iberia and elsewhere

It is interesting, thanks for the link...however, it does beg the question as to what the University of Huddersfield are offering that is 'new' here? The publicity seems to be based on a need to attract students to fill PhD places that have arisen due to the new department attracting funding, but otherwise, nothing new here, just confirmation of the results of previous MtDNA studies that have been circulating in the past few years or so.

What would be new, is the integration of MtDNA findings with a more comprehensive mapping of Y lines. Limited studies have already shown that they paint entirely different migrationary pictures. But, to get all conspiratorial about it, because that is supposedly what we do here, that avenue of research does not seem at all popular with those that provide the funding for PhDs and the departments and associated resources needed to support them. I wonder why?

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

Originally posted by Hanslune
In Slayer's link there is this link - don't miss it

A tad technical but it has some interesting info on human movements in Iberia and elsewhere

It is interesting, thanks for the link...however, it does beg the question as to what the University of Huddersfield are offering that is 'new' here? The publicity seems to be based on a need to attract students to fill PhD places that have arisen due to the new department attracting funding, but otherwise, nothing new here, just confirmation of the results of previous MtDNA studies that have been circulating in the past few years or so.

What would be new, is the integration of MtDNA findings with a more comprehensive mapping of Y lines. Limited studies have already shown that they paint entirely different migrationary pictures. But, to get all conspiratorial about it, because that is supposedly what we do here, that avenue of research does not seem at all popular with those that provide the funding for PhDs and the departments and associated resources needed to support them. I wonder why?

My understanding is that the differences are caused by using different data bases of test subjects, different criteria etc, like most questions in science there is insufficient data (DNA) sampling to determine a large number of questions. There is also the problem of genetic inclusions, ie people marrying or having children outside whatever small group they are associated with and that material distorting what is being seen.

ie a Basque group that is thought to be 'pure' and has lived in a small village up in the hills but they have forgotten that in the 14th century, one man left the village, became a shipwreck sailor on the island of Malta married a local Jewish girl, brought her back and her genetic material is still in the Basque 'stock', etc.

I'd say we should get a clearer picture, DNA wise, in about 25-30 years.

Yes an interesting subject.

The very basis of science, is to ask questions of the "Established" facts.

It is all very well to quote DNA types etc, when all those results are only from modern humans of modern times.

We really have NO "definitive" idea of the Human genome, it is all speculation and guessing, based on results of Modern humans.

We may well be an interbred species, from some distant technology. We may never know.

Scientists are now questioning, did we come from Mars?...yes scientists!! not Sifi writers etc.

It always surprises me, when I watch programs (made in cooperation with scientists and their facts) regarding the spread of early humans from Africa, they Always, without exception, portray the "African" invasion to Europe, as a bunch of WHITE people, using the Woomera (throwing spear attatchment, and unique Only to Aust Natives and some South American tribes).
A recent thread about the Neanderthals, has a link to a "Factual" BBC program showing this.

So,.. the original Modern Man from Africa, was a White man?

Was Africa covered in Ice sheets too (I guess it was, Certain areas of Australia were).

Skin colour, defines race supposedly, but Indian people and Australian people, can have very dark skin, but neither are African Negros.

Yes, Environment, eg lots of Sun, can darken skin, but why are'nt some desert/jungle American tribes black? (they seem to turn red/tan).

There are apes that live in Africa, in the same environment, that have different coloured skin. Both The Chimpanzee and the Bonoba, have a variety of skin colour from black to white, just like humans. But they live in the same area?.

Orangutans have light skin when young, that turns dark as they age, yet Humans from the same area (Indonesians) generally have tan skin.

New species of animals are "Discovered" every day on Earth.

There is No definitive, yes we came from such and such.............in science. There are only more questions.

reply to post by gort51


I think you are mis understanding what scientists are saying about Mars they don't mean humans or our ancestors but the most primitive or even the first life.

They do have some some DNA from non-Modern HSS and HSN and HSD but none from HF

Originally posted by Hanslune
Well I must say I found his mix of speculation and definite statements musing. Oh technically he said he didn't have facts for his theory but what about his statements about those 'reckless' scientists?

edit on 1/9/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

Yeah well in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks about my opinions on this matter. If you don't like it, too bad. Hey, have a great day though guy! ~$heopleNation

Originally posted by SheopleNation

Originally posted by Hanslune
Well I must say I found his mix of speculation and definite statements musing. Oh technically he said he didn't have facts for his theory but what about his statements about those 'reckless' scientists?

edit on 1/9/13 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)

Yeah well in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter what you or anyone else thinks about my opinions on this matter. If you don't like it, too bad. Hey, have a great day though guy!

~$heopleNation

edit on 2-9-2013 by SheopleNation because: TypO

Actually it does - its not that we dislike it we disagree with it.....you don't quite seem to understand the purpose and function of a discussion board.....lol.

You'll find that if say something suspect or incorrect you'll be called on it.

Originally posted by Hanslune
Actually it does - its not that we dislike it we disagree with it.....you don't quite seem to understand the purpose and function of a discussion board.....lol.

Oh indeed I do. Actually it's you that after all these years who clearly can still not comprehend what attack the message, not the messenger means. You chimed on in and focused on me instead of the subject. Looks like your big hyper bloated retort just turned out to be a bunch of bull crap eh my friend? If it helps you sleep at night, think what you like.

You'll find that if say something suspect or incorrect you'll be called on it

Yet you have no way at all to prove that I was incorrect, so enjoy your ego rub. You have contributed absolutely nothing but you were amused by me saying this, or me saying that. LMAO! Now don't go away mad, just go away. I will leave you with this, cause I am going to take this great Man's advice over your's any time of the day. ~$heopleNation

"Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference" - Mark Twain

Originally posted by SheopleNation

Oh indeed I do. Actually it's you that after all these years who clearly can still not comprehend what attack the message, not the messenger means. You chimed on in and focused on me instead of the subject. Looks like your big hyper bloated retort just turned out to be a bunch of bull crap eh my friend? If it helps you sleep at night, think what you like.

Odd you still seem to think its unusual to be asked about a statement you made on a discussion board, ie to discuss it. I could care less about you personally but we are talking about what you wrote.

Yet you have no way at all to prove that I was incorrect, so enjoy your ego rub.

Actually you have demonstrated that what you said was wrong - by the way you have reacted and refused to discuss it......rather recklessly I'd say.......

You have contributed absolutely nothing but you were amused by me saying this, or me saying that. LMAO! Now don't go away mad, just go away.

No I have shown you made an unsupportable statement, refused to discuss it and established that you really need to think about what participation on a discussion board means.

"Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference"

In this case I don't think people will have the slightest difficulty determining who that is eh? lol