human origin debate (out-of-africa?)

Do you, like, have a life, I wonder, other than fighting imaginary enemies on-line? Wow, you're something.

 

Edited by es_bih - 03-Feb-2009 at 14:57

Originally posted by beorna Originally posted by calvo   I also had a look at some of its links, such as www.racialreality.com nothing with terms like racial is serious. There are no human races. Originally posted by calvo  The truth is, I really don't know whether to take them seriously or not. I wouldn't call the multi-regional or the out-of-asia theory unserious. They are probably wrong, but not in any case not serious. Originally posted by calvo  So far, most genetists and anthropological experts have settled with the "out-of-africa" theory on the origins of Homo-Sapiens based on the testing of the mutation mark on DNA chromozones; explaining that all human beings alive descend today from a Mitocondrial Eve that lived in Eastern Africa some 150,000 years ago. This made the multi-regionalist a bit quiet, but one single exploration can change the whole picture we have about human evolution. Many of the so-called "scientists" on these anthropological forums seem to challenge this view, claiming that there is ample of evidence to explain separate biological origins for the different races of man, and that distinct human races are equivalent to sub-species, only that they are not allowed to be published by the Politically-Correct pressure of today's world.

The problem is, are Homo erectus and Homo sapiens or Homo heidelbergensis or Homo neanderthalensis different species or not. Nobody can really say this. They are what we had to call Palaeo-species. So it is possible that Homo was just one specie since perhaps two million years. The problem with the multi.regional theory is that e.g. in Europe the difference between the habitus of Homso s. and Homo n. is to great for saying they developed from each other. and we found Homo s. and Homo n. in Palestine in different layers and Homo n. wasn't the elder one. Of course multi-regional-theory could be right nevertheless. So just in Europe the modern Homo sapiens arrived and wiped the Homo n. out. In all other regions the populations developed without a break. But we have to doubt here too. I don't want to accuse every multi-regionalist, but this seems to be a racist view. The modern "race" developed in the Near East and Europe. All other "races" , of course "inferior races" developed from less modern forms.

Originally posted by calvo  Personally speaking, I try to be objective and form my opinion with what scientific evidence comes up, and so far I trust the "out-of-africa" model more than the "multi-regional" model based on the fact that scientists from several prestigious universities all over the world have agreed with the same thing. (doubt that all of them are part of the same PC conspiracy).

The family tree of the hominids has more whit and unknown branches than it has branches with known palaeo-species. Gibbons and Orangs appear in Asia, so why Asia isn't an important area for human evolution. It was once thought that Homo erectus was the first who left Africa. This is no longer sure. Perhaps we just explored no early Hominid outside Africa till now but they came from Asia or from Miocene Europe, who knows? I hope one day the nationalism while be wiped out in science. So that e.g. Chinese can be proud of Homo pekinensis allthough he's not the Chinese ancestor. [/QUOTE]
I'm going to have to disagree with the Europeans being derived from Homo N. and Homo P how do you explain the white,asian and blacks being able to intermate today when we know down the line species are not able to interbreed as far down generations within 100,000 years. And how do you explain the traces of your culture,can state any traces of Homo Neandertal technology that is found in Europe today or better yet in the world.

Originally posted by es_bih I am just asking both of you to keep the discussion in a gentlemanly manner. Thanks. No reason for personal insults from either side.

Bey, I am sure you have read this so please stop the personal attacks, just like Konstantinius. Thus I hid your post since it lacked in anything of substance to this ongoing discussion. I am sure you can come up with a much better and academic rebuttal than that. Thanks gentlemen.

got a point Bey, all posts are hidden. If es bih wants to let you guys edit out the filler and just leave the thriller that would be fine. Until then it would be best for the thread to hide the most recent posts (no one in particular targeted) and start talking human origins.

Everyone is smart and no one is a Nazi, please guys let it go.


Edited by Leonidas - 03-Feb-2009 at 13:10

Originally posted by konstantinius However, Asians today retain primitive characteristics such as shovel-shaped incisors and occipital bun (both H. erectus traits). If indeed complete replacement is true, then these mutations have repeated twice in EXACT fashion which is an evolutionary impossibility (or at least not seen anywhere else yet). Also, Java man is of high antiquity which presupposes that if modern H. sapiens completely replaced them, they must have arrived there immediately upon exit from Africa.

The occipital bun is not a peculiar trait of Homo Erectus. It was characteristic of numerous pre-Homo Sapiens hominid species, including Neanderthals. Modern humans don't have the bun, period. The occasional human may happen to have a small protrusion (nothing approaching the size of a true Neanderthal occipital bun), but this trait appears in populations all over the world and is not a peculiar characteristic of Asians.

I'm not sure what your point is about Java Man. You'll have to explain what his antiquity has to do with when modern humans appeared in East Asia.

 

Originally posted by konstantinius In my opinion that is a mistake. It is very possible that in Asia modern humans out of Africa mated with local H. erectus/Archaic homo to produce the modern inhabitants.

It's possible, there just isn't much evidence to suggest it. Personally I don't think it makes much sense. One would imagine, if modern Asians were the product of a hybridization with Homo Erectus, with its robust facial features, that modern Asians would have some of those robust features. They don't, and neither do modern Europeans resemble Neanderthals in any way.

Originally posted by Boreasi 50.000+ years old Australians: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/38656/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 50.000 years old Americans http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf087/sf087a01.htm http://www.athenapub.com/10pfurad.htm 40.000+ years old Articals http://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/~gowlett/Gowlett-in_the_cold-n2001.pdf How did the alledged tribe from Africa reach to populate all these sites - MORE than 40.000 years ago...?!

Gcle I meant one common human ancestor. For instance, as a minimum,  the Eve everyone talks about could have been an identical twin. More likely though is that there was a common human litter (i.e. group of siblings). More likely than that that there beings qualified as 'human' emerged in several families.

I don't want to be annoying but I just have to ask these questions.
If there was an Eve or identical twin Eve, who was her mother? there is a starting point for everything unless its always existed.

And there must have been a beginning of whatever the early population was. Nope. See above. Gradual change over many many generations.

In explaining the origin of new species the frame "Gradual change" is just another simplistic speculation, without any scientific foundantion.

Originally posted by edgewaters Gradualism (phyletic or punctuated) is an evolutionary theory with considerable evidence. It has competitors who are also backed up by considerable evidence, such as punctuated equilibrium. But it is nonsense to say it hasn't got "any scientific foundation".

If we differ between "supposed" and "proved" we may look at these theories as suggestions. More or less qualified and/or advanced they are still pre-sumtions.

In spite of more than a centurys research of this question we still cant make "gradualism" a valid basis for profound claims about how primates have produced new species. Conrary to popular belief there is still no evidence that such a metamorphosis can or have happend. Thus I intended to point out that this (old) hypothesis (still) doesn't have a true scientific foundation - and doesnt seem to get one.

At this time the other theory you mentioned - "punctuated equilibrum" - seem to carry a better promise for a scientific explanation. All it requires is that we find the missing link...!


Edited by Boreasi - 06-Feb-2009 at 09:14