Slashdot Mirror
Humans First Arose in Asia?
IZ Reloaded writes "Two archaeologists are proposing the idea that early humans first arose in Asia instead of Africa as previously thought. These early humans then migrate out of Asia to parts of the world. From National Geographic: 'The unresolved status of the intriguing Flores finds attributed to H. floresiensis leaves open the possibility that this species is the end result and last survivor of an ancient migration of very primitive humans, or even prehumans, that formerly existed more widely across Asia ... '"
and humans.
Gorbachev sings tractors! Turnips! Buttocks!
Really? I thought the Intelligent Designer (who we wont name because that would show us up for who we are; fundie idiots) blinked the world in to existance in a single instant. I mean life is too complicated to arise by chance, right? I just don't want to believe I'm related to an animal renound for picking shit out of it's ass. Man was created by God and that's that, these scientist don't know anything.
As a race we need to grow up. The search for truth can lead to only one place and that place is a place without God. In 400 years science has brought us further than the thousands of years of religious dogma before it. My message is simple: Embrace science, reject religion and it's false promises. The afterlife is a lie. When you die that is it, you're dead. Rather than living your life through your own self-interest trying to get in to a heavenly place that does not exist I just ask that you embrace those around you, talk to other people, help each other out and in that spirit we can all make the world a little nicer.
On the first day, man created God and he was pleased with what he'd achieved. On the second day, man worshiped God and life was good. On the third day, different men had different ideas about God and their cultures diverged. On the fourth day, men spilt blood over these differences and it has been this way ever since.
Simon.
We have tons of data points showing homo sapiens evolved in Africa. So many of the missing links like Lucy and other members of the homo tree have all been found in Africa.
I'm not debating their points (I've not read the article yet), but it would seem to require us to throw out the data that we already have. If homo species migrated to the rest of the world from Asia, then it would have requires Lucy, a relatively primitive human to have gotten to Africa, then start a long series of descendents and multiple branches of evolution there, eventually resulting in homo sapiens.
I am unamerican, and proud of it!
Does this imply that either -
A. Humans got to North America before we previously thought (I find this unlikely, because it requires an earlier russo-alaskan bridge)
B. Asia just got a massive head start?
So what's the proposed spread of humanity now - Asia => Africa & Europe, then to North & South America?
http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
You can find that almost anywhere. Like here - browse at -1, for example.
Didn't the first humans migrate from Mars on asteroids? Or was it DC-8's? Whichever one wasn't on SOuth Park.
If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
Amazing, even human evolution is getting outsourced to Asia!
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
...was an extrememly hot babe. Hotter than any babe that has existed since. Then a genetic abberation caused geeks to appear and people became less hot. Except for Carmen Electra.
Well, I DO like Chinese food...a lot...
I'm taking bets on how long it will take for (Jesse Jackson|Al Sharpton|Malcom X's ghost) to attack the finsings...
The article says:
"Evidence of humans in the Caucasus [region of Asia], China, and Java more than 1.6 million years ago implies either a very rapid spread from Africa after about 1.8 millions years ago, or that such populations were established outside Africa earlier than present evidence suggests," he said.
so, the theory assumes that 200,000 years is not enough for such a migration? Isn't that a bit of an underestimation, or even wishful thinking just to backup a sensationalist theory?
My other account has mod points.
That's it. They left Africa in search of noodles.
Table-ized A.I.
What is means is that humanity first arose in Asia, but the rest of us lazy Westerners were still sleeping. I understand parts of Florida are still asleep.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Why doesn't the slashdot community glom onto Yoism, the first Open Source Religion?
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
Wasn't spaghetti invented in Asia?
I didn't think the human race was indigenous to the planet Earth. I thought men originated from Mars and women from Venus? Maybe Asia has a larger gravitational attraction and as such crafts from both our races managed to crash land there.
If big boobed women work at Hooters do one legged women work at IHOP?
I'm pretty sure the archeologists are not the ones making the lame sensationalist headlines that appear on Slashdot or in the press. They're smarter than that.
Now, I'm sure intelligent design, on the other hand, has a much more sensible theory. God poofed us into existence! All that evidence pointing to evolution is just a ruse created by God to weed out the unbelievers who ask too many questions about the validity of God. They're going to hell!
The earliest known pottery, some 20~30,000 years old, is found in Japan and China (every couple of years one side or the other finds an even older one). Pottery indicates civilization, simply because nomadic hunter gatherer type people don't have a lot of time to sit down, find suitable clay, mold it, and build a firing kiln, and pottery doesn't trvel particularly well to boot.
If the first civilization arrose in Asia, then it is not a completely abberational jump to say that humans started around there. Still would need a lot of investigation, of course.
This is really gonna put a dent in my "AFRIKA INVENTED EVERYTHING INCLUDING MANKIND, BATTERIES, AND SPACESHIPS!" franchise down at the flea market.
(ps - lameness filters suck.)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Wouldn't it be possible that pre-humans migrated to different locations and finished their evolution separately? Considering Neandrathals are no longer considered in a direct evolutionary line to modern humans, that indicates a separate branch of evolution.
Distinctly different environments, like Asia and Africa, could account for something like this. Multiple evolutionary paths, occurring in multiple physical locations on the planet. Why do scientists seem so attached to the "Eve" theory?
-Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
If conciensness creates reality as Amit Goswami said,
When I die we ALL are dead.
--ken
Bitcoin pyramid: Join here: http://www.bitcoinpyramid.com/r/1427 it's FREE!
so the story of the human-like monkey, Goku, travelling west was the oral history of those who stayed behind turned into legend?!?! aaahh. now i just don't know what to believe anymore!
if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
...te?
Evil Lord Xenu froze all the alien races and dumped them into volcanoes here on earth. Their souls were collected by soul vacuumes and then forced to watch movies and be brainwashed, only to then inhabit the bodies of primitive man. I think that's how it goes, I still have to pay for a few more audit councelings before my thetan levels are capable of truly grasping this profound knowledge
I think there was one small branch of early hominid that were horrified at the other hominids and went on a million year killing spree until all that was left that looked even close to them were gorillas and chimps. And even then they are horrified if someone says there is even the slightest genetic relation to chimps.
I would say what's distinctive about humans is the violent reaction against those that are just slightly different. Sunnis kill Shiites, protestants kill catholics, everyone kills atheists, bloods kill crips and vise versa (except for the atheists). Dogs don't act like that.
Science is great because we never really know, do we.
So an early asian humanoid and a early african humanoid walk into a bar...
What puzzles me is how remote volcanic islands became inhabited. Hawaii for example. Theres no way early man could have sailed there.
Why would you trust a testimonial when choosing hosting?
After all, wouldn't the Flying Spaghetti Monster have reached His noodly appendage to that part of the world where He first created humans to bless them first with the secret of Noodles?
Who knows? It could happen.
rotfl!
All your ancestors are belong to us! Muhahahaha ha ha ha
Why isn't everyone driving around at 20 mph with their turning signal on?
It seems that the large, flat expanses of Africa are more conducive to the evolution of bipedal locomotion; which is the most effecient form of leg-based movement for endurance and traversing long distances (bepedalism is essentially a pendulum).
;)
Asia does have it's fair share of flat expanses of course, but the amazing flora and fauna of Africa, the diversity thereof and climate change data still seems to point to an evolutionary hotspot on the globe.
Nevertheless, let's not fall into the mindset where alternative theories are tossed aside simply because they don't "feel" right.
Meteor crater in Arizona was once thought to have been caused by lava and steam - but now we know it was created by an intelligent designer
oh I kid, I kid!
We first arose from His Noodly Appendage. It says so here.
Warning: Could be fatal if taken seriously
I'm turning Japanese
I think I'm turning Japanese
I really think so
Comment removed based on user account deletion
...to Southpark, episode 42 Chinpokomon
The video game causes Kenny to have a seizure. In Japan, the South Park toy store owner goes to the Chinpokomon corporate office to find out the reason behind the Chinpokomon's message. The executives there tell him it must be a mistake, and to divert his attention away they talk about his large American penis.
We unduhstand you have big concern about our fine pro-duct. ...especially small.
Red: Oh, eh- yes. Do you mind tellin' me what the hell this is about? [squeezes Lambtor]
Lambtor: The American government lies to you! Join the fight for Japanese supremacy of the world! More to come. [the two men remain silent]
Red: Well?
Mr. Ose: Uuuh.
President Hirohito: That is so sturange. [takes Lambtor from Red] I do not a-know how this could happen. But urest assured, I will make sure [glares sideways at Mr. Ose] it does not happong again!
Red: Well, now, come on, I don't think that that quite satisfies my-
President Hirohito: You are American?
Red: Yes.
President Hirohito: [begins to gesture] Ogh! You must have very big pee-anis!
Red: Excuse me? I was just asking you what you're up to with these toys!
President Hirohito: Nothing. We are very simple people. With very small penis. Mr. Ose penis is
Mr. Ose: [fakes a sob] Uh, smuh, so small.
President Hirohito: We cannot achieve much with so small penis. But you! Americans. Wow! Penis so big! SOOO big penis!
Red: [flattered] Well uh, he-I guess it is a pretty good size.
Why don't we dig up everything to find ALL the answers? If you outright believe anything an archeologist says you should read: Motel Of The Mysteries http://www.google.com/search?q=motel+of+the+myster ies
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0395 284252?v=glance
One review:
This book was actually a gift from my Mother who knows I enjoy things archaeological and historical. Since she`s more than a trifle eccentric and has a marvelous sense of the absurd, I've a sneaking suspicion she was poking a little fun at me--which is something I probably need once in a while for my own good.
The Motel of the Mysteries is a wonderful send up of the fields of archaeology and history. It's aim is doubtless to entertain, at which it's vastly successful, but over and above that the book makes quite clear what archaeology legitimately can and cannot do. I think it also points out that what is taken as "The Reality" of the past is often as much a function of current cultural biases and of the personal motives of individual researchers as it is of what actually occurred in the past. (This was made quite clear to me when I saw Knossos on Crete for the first time and realized that a great deal of imagination had gone into the reconstruction of the "Minoan" buildings there).
My favorite parts of Motel were Archaeologist Carson's interpretation of the hotel bathroom as the inner sanctum of a religious structure and the subsequent depiction of his assistant--ala Heinrich Schliemann with the Trojan treasure and Leonard Wooley with the Ur III treasure--wearing bathroom accoutrements as religious paraphernalia.
The author also pokes fun at museums and at all of us, when he includes a collection of "Souvenirs and Quality Reproductions" available for sale at the end of the book. My favorite is the coffee set based on the "sacred urn" (toilet). Goodness knows I've purchased my fair share of quality reproductions on my travels throughout the world!
This should be suggested reading for every college history and archeology major and required for those seeking degrees over BA in these fields!
P2P Anonymous Distributed Web Search: http://www.yacy.net/
Why does everyone feel it's important to know the origin of the biological unit they're inhabiting? What a waste of time.
Because evolution still has discrete boundaries. Population A has been separate from population B long enough and changed enough genetically that they can no longer interbreed. Ping! New species.
But, almost certainly, this article completely overstates the findings and theories based on them. Scientists certainly don't think in terms of "find me the square foot of land on which the first homo sapien was born". But questions about where certain traits first developed, and where they migrated to, or perhaps even evolved independently and separately, are subjects of great inquiry.
All the old Koreans will like this story.
H. erectus that walked to the indonesian island area before the seas rose and then were cut off. After this, they evolved into smaller creatures to survive because a smaller range requires smaller creatures, all of which are present on that island.
I swear, I at first read the'f' as a 't', and, oh, the imagery! What a South Park episode that would make!
Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
Were they looking for I.T. jobs?
This is just as ignorant and the religious right saying we're all going to burn in hell for our sins. None of us know anything about what happens when we die. Not you, not them, not anyone. Before you go forcing your views down peoples throats, step back and realise that all of this effort is just useless until it actually happens.
All hail SCIENCE and burn the Heretic Theists!
Please do not quote Bible passages. I hate it when people do this. Think interpretation. Religion and science are at odds because they explain the origin of the universe in different ways. They are related, however, because they are constructs of humankind. If one really looks at evolution, there really is no purpose for a god. Change is random and a response to the environment (selective pressures and natural selection). You of course know all of this already. Don't you? I thought so...
Science only replaced religions, when humans became discontent with faith as a way of understanding how the universe worked. Darwin believed in God because he was brought up in a religious family and even he did not understand the principle of scientific revolution that he had put fourth. I still find religion interesting, however, for historically value. Humanistic principles, however, have evolved to replace our traditional understanding of humanity and the construct of society.
The great and French archeologist Yves Coppens discovered that humanity was born in Africa (among other fabulous breakthoughts in archeology).
You know, that whole "Land Bridge" thing seemed fishy to me ever since I heard about it as a kid. Is this evidence further support for the so-called multi-regional theory of human evolution?
Since you seem to have it figured out, I'll ask you a couple of questions I've stumbled across:
1. How does justice work? It seems like a lot of people have gotten a way with a lot of bad stuff and it seems like a lot of good people have gotten screwed. Oh well tough luck.
2. What is consciousness? It seems kind of crazy.
3. What's with all of this love and family suff? Those brain chemicals are weird I guess.
4. Speaking of brain chemicals, how does this whole "free will" thing work? Do I have free will or don't I?
Well good luck! (cause I guess what it comes down to anyway, quantum theory and parallel dimension of luckyness and stuff)
JP
Over time, National Geographic has lost so much credibility. Their 'science' has become really speculative garbage. I was raised on NG, but won't touch it now with a barge pole. Even their photography is ho-hum (or I'm getting better than them).
I think there is a typo in the subject line of this story. It's supposed to read "Humans First aroused in Asia" which makes more sense. Have you ever been to Japan? It's absolutely teaming with scaulding-hot asian chicks. You can't turn around without running into another asian chick. Man may have started off in Africa but it wasn't until they met up with the women in Asia did things really take off.
Those scientists just couldn't handle the idea that they descended from black folks! They don't mind being related to the Chinese, but they want no part of us! Anything to keep the black man down! :-)
Hiawatha Bray
Tech Reporter
Boston Globe
We didn't originate from Asia, we originated from the telephone cleaners, hairdressers, and account executives from Golgafrincha. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Restaurant_at_the _End_of_the_Universe
So that explains why I like eating Chinese food so much...
...I'm not a nigger after all!
Actually, I think THIS one ought to be "4: Funny"
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
They were not even great apes. Old World Monkeys. Repeat...not apes. Not even as bipedal as a chimp which of course it not. Nothing more than a myth. They had no relation to H. erectus or any other bipedal specie in Homo or outside of. No environmental changes would account for such a postulation. Selective pressures and the environment likely would have not supported such a change.
Thought "'s ghost" was outside the parentheses. Oops.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Oh god...eyes bleeding. WTF?!?!?! Can someone translate crazy for me so this makes some semblence of sense?
Thank you, I'm glad someone got it. Perhaps some other moderators will help correct the problem.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
The idea that it's better to take a risk - gamble on god, if you will - and follow a religion rather than not follow a religion and run the risk of damnation is best argued in Pascal's Penseés.
Some of my favorites include:
Don't be too quick to judge. Pascal was, after all, a pretty important guy. It's at least worth a glance.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well, suppose we're genetic castoff, a la Botany Bay. If some/a/the "Guardian" of the Universe decided we're not flotsam, but just needed some protection, then it could be that the DNA and other animals dropped off were scattered.
Then, on the other hand, if we're the descendents of some crashed alien craft, then it might make sense that if it were a SMALL crashed craft, then they'd have all landed (or died) in the same place. But, if it were a LARGE craft (presumably with "escape pods") then they'd have spread out.
But, with all that technology, they'd likely have the ability to regroup, unless there was an inssurection or falling out. Even so, some cataclysm would later on have to happen to suppress all that tech, essentially setting us back as far as we are now, relative to where we COULD have been if environmental carnage and warfare (petty human political greed and so on) were not a big part of the picture.
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
That is a myth.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Exactly, I believe the current theory (based on genetic evidence among other things) is that some (relatively) small group of chimp/human ancestors got isolated from the rest of the population. This group promptly fucked each other a lot and over time became a separate species.
As a result when they finally managed to start expanding into other areas they could no longer successfully mate with the remaining population (ie: the one which wasn't isolated).
As such you can say where this group got isolated and as such where they came from, assuming you have a single point of origin. Some theories claim multiple points of origin, and as such you can't say "we started out here." Although evidence points strongly at a single origin, usually in Africa.
Parent is racist troll, please mod
Have I got this right, evolve to pre-human in Africa, go to Asia, evolve to human, go to Africa, evolve to h. sapiens, go to Asia -- "Eve, will you tell your kids to make their ffffing minds up?" - barquero on the Straits of Hormuz, circa 200,000 BC.
They arose in Asia, but were quickly deemed illegal monopoly and split in several pieces accross the world.
They were in search of Chinese take out.
Nathan
And to think, I'm still waiting for the "shall humble themselves" part of things instead of trying to convince the rest of us of their superiority while being unable to spell...
If nobody else famous is attributed to this idea, praise me like the god I am.
Early humans didn't come from ONE singular location. There are specific characteristics from certain geographic regions to this day, along with historic evidence that in my opinion suggests early humans arose in various geographic regions;
Africa
Western Asia/Eastern Europe
East Asia
Northern South America/Southern Central America
People need to start looking at this in a more legitimate sense.
What a load of BS. So all of those wars in Europe and Asia in the past two thousand years have been based on secular principles? You know the Thirty Years War (1618-1648), French Wars on Religion (Catholics v. Protestants) of 9 wars, and Crusades. As "evil" as the Soviets and Chinese regimes were, are they do not rise to this level.
In God were trust was added in in 1864 and officially supported by Congress in 1956.
This country was not founded on Christians, at least not all because many were deist. Deist are not Christian because they question whether Jesus existed at all and even if he did (on his deity). Further, the compromise between deist and select Christian groups who feared a theocracy. When the country was orginally territories there was real conflict between the many Charters. Some had religious convictions and some did in name only. In summary America (the United States) is not a Christian country.
Well we could all find out what part of the world we originated in, but that doesn't matter. The fact is that European culture -Western culture- has spread so much across this globe that it doesn't matter if we were all once black, white, or Asian. Europeans did a good thing to the world by introducing diseases that killed nearly all of the native population that the came in contact with. Yay small pox! Now lets see, the Chinese develop gun powder, and then use it for what??? Oh yeah fireworks, it took the Europeans to first think of a way to use this for killing people. Hmm, maybe China has started to learn something, look at their current political stance. "Let's try to run the world, since we fucked it up 50,000 years ago."
I've lived in Asia for about the past 2 1/2 years now, and have come to notice that whenever I try to discuss the differences between Western and Eastern culture, I usually get the phrase "Our culture is older than yours. " thrown into my face. And they say Westerners have egos?? I think this will just add more fuel to the fire-the Chinese will believe once again that they are the superior race and commit genocide against all others. Well maybe they won't go that far but the point still remains the same. Just live here a while and you'll know what the hell I'm talking about.
Oh and if i forgot to mention it, wasn't steel first developed in the Western world? Thus allowing all those Polo loving chaps to hack their way through as much flesh and bone as their heart contended?
Physics is imagination in a straight jacket. ~John Moffat
I remember learning that humans originated from Asia in high school. Is this just MORE evidence and not the first evidence that points to this theory? Lately there have been a lot of "discoveries" that just seem like old news.
The fact is that the mitochondrial DNA data is consistent with multiple matrilines as well as. Lots of people have hung their hat on the Out of Africa hypothesis but that doesn't mean their intepretation of the DNA evidence is gospel.
Seastead this.
Innan and Nordborg
Seastead this.
No, CmdrTaco generates them to trick us! All the posts here are a result of Intelligent Posting, and if you read -1 posts you won't get mod points!
Your posting is so complex that I can't understand it. That can mean only one thing, are you the intelligent writer/designer?
It's an anti-fundie tirade, and it seems presumptuous of you to equate the two.
According to Cosmologist Carl Sagan, we are all made of starstuff (ie: dust from comets and asteroids that hit earth), which means that Humans and all life on Earth origionated in OuterSpace, thus we are all ET's.
Why not? The theory of evolution doesn't state that everything evolves into a dude in every possible location. In fact, as another poster has pointed out, it is commonly believed that a primary catalyst for evolution is that part of a population is seperated from the rest of the population, for several generations.
Not all atheists are geeks. I once knew an aethiest who had a really cool tattoo of a dragon eating a cow. That guy was cool!
Well, the ability to breed with humans is a somewhat reliable indicator. The exception being my mother who had her tubes tied, after I was born. I suppose she's still human...
Asia is a pretty big place...
Miracle = A marvellous event manifesting a supernatural act of God.
Evolution !=a marvellous event manifesting a supernatural act of God. To think that evolution only works in a way that is positive to the organism is erroneous - there are plenty of examples of 'Evolution Gone Wild' to the detriment of the creatures so evolved.
It's a crapshoot, not a set of intricate blueprints.
Since current orthodoxy is "Out of Africa" any data which is inconsistent with this orthodoxy must be explained in a way that is consistent with the orthodoxy. This is quite similar to much of the activity of intelligent design theorists.
Seastead this.
When an atheist dogmatically asserts the superiority of his belief system over everyone else's, let's face it, comedy is a dead art form. Now tragedy, that's funny!
The article talks quite a bit about fossil evidence, but what about the genetic evidence? If you look at the variability of human genetics, you find that europeans aren't very genetically diverse. Similarly, American Indians aren't very genetically diverse, and Asians aren't either. Africans, on the other hand, are very genetically diverse. What this indicates is that the human race' history in Africa goes back much further than anywhere else. It appears that a subset of Africans left Africa and colonized the rest of the world. Here's a short article that talks about human genetic diversity compared to their location: http://info.med.yale.edu/genetics/kkidd/point.html
http://www.umich.edu/news/?Releases/2005/Oct05/r10 1805
After getting kicked out of the Garden of Eden, humans were on God's Double-Secret Probation list, so they went on a road-trip.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Joel O'Steen! The Bush Family! ENRON! We should start digging immediately.
Good plan. So when I say that my fingernail contains God, please don't tell me I'm crazy because that would be forcing your views upon me. Afterall, you can't prove me wrong.
Here's a thought...how about we work with what we know rather than live our lives on shit we don't?
Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. -- H. L. Mencken
Flamebait? Sheesh! You guys got zero sense of humor!
Hiawatha Bray
Tech Reporter
Boston Globe
That the Jews and Christians have had the same story since day one, but it's the scientists that keep changing their story. Who would you trust???
-Nick
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
http://www.shef.ac.uk/assem/3/3chamb.htm
This is about a BBC Horizon docu from 1997 I saw a couple of days ago.
We're ALL made in China?
No wonder the quality of humanity is crappy and the value is so low. We're made in sweatshops.
Seriously, given the distribution of non-homo-sapien homonid fossils, it seems we evolved all over Africa and Eurasia. Given the enormous timescales, the apes probably walked across continents several times (but never reached the Americas or Antarctica since we havent found ANY fossils there). So we evolved in the Eastern Hemisphere but nowhere in particular. Giving a single location for the evolution of mankind is similar to creationism (THUD, thus fell Adam from the sky).
Another issue is the chromosome study. There are around 1000 variations of the Y-chromosome which is supposed to pass unchanged from father to son. This means the original homo sapiens group was around 2000 people from which we all evolved, unless you can say the Y-chromosome mutated around 999 times and survived in the past 200,000 years.
I think evolution didnt come from a single couple (Adam-type theory) but rather a collection of communities. Its quite possible we have genes from homonids which were distinct species back then from us (Neandertal, Florensis, even Erectus). While the communities evolved on their own in different parts of the world, there was sufficient transfer of genes among them to keep them all interbreedable until a very successful community took over the others. This makes sense during the ice age whereby communities were small and interbred frequently, but all the homonids travelled widely enough to be in contact with each other occasionally.
So did mankind come out of Africa or some part of Asia or Australia? Depends on which homonid ancestor you're willing to label THE ancestor.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
I have undeniable, unrefutable, absolute proof that humans were planted here by space aliens. Is someone will give me a $5 million grant I will publish my findings and all of the proof. This is amazing. It is so absolutly unrefutable. Nobody can prove this wrong or even question it.
Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
...and just to respond to some other post I saw while glancing through and skipping over the inevitable and pointless ID arguments, they're not Filipinos either and not really very oriental (but got some nice looking wimmin).
Besides, if I remember my Geology correctly, back then the Indonesian Archeopelagic Plate was tacked on to ("Land-bridged") the West European Plate. So I'm descended from honkies !!!
Whew.
What criteria are you using?
If you just use genes, then humans have largely similar DNA to mice.
Basically, the problem is that your has no standard against which to measure. For example, how about "there is X% as much variation across all humans as across all dogs". It still doesn't tell people too much, since they don't really know how much genetic variation is in dogs. But at least they know dogs do have much more varying appearances than humans.
http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
Hiawatha - why did you say that Apple was refusing to share Fairplay with audiobook publishers? Have you completely missed Audible.com?
Everything has its time and place.
Science had its time before religion started to explain the natural world phenomena. In the beggining humans were primitive tool users, usings empirically derived techniques such as using sticks to fish tasty ants from their mounds, before we came up with language and its children, morality and religion.
Religion has progressed a lot since those times. Since the rise of modern metallurgy, there has been little parallel development in the sciences: we learned to mix some different things together in different ways, and construct new shapes that were a little stronger. Well, we've been mixing things together and fitting them into shapes for thousands of years.
It is because of this that Science has had its time. Of course, our current society structure is not optimal, it is not the best but it is better. Religion might also not explain all behaviors we see in terms of local physical law but instead of going backwards and beginning to attribute them again to this "regular statistical behavior" humans should continue to develop knowledge of the grander, more specific purpose of things.
I do not have a position as neutral as yours about Science. For me, science sucks, all kinds of science are stupid, hubritic vanities and do not have any fundaments of purpose. Science has been used only as means of population control, this can be seen now on your current government (if you are from anywhere that uses fertilizers or rotational agriculture). Your president is seeding terror on you by means of empirically devised weapons. And this is because your politics and your society is deeply rooted on humanist, scientific grounds.
Take a look at your dollar bills "E Pluribus Unum", how can a country be cosmopolite if there is such a dependence on one particular branch of knowledge, namely the scientific/mathematic technique of Addition?
I repeat, science sucks, someone will surely tell me that science does not suck by itself but it is men that use it for their own convenience. But, the way I see it, that has been the role of science since human created it. It is a tool (and very powerful) to create and control large masses of people.
Science should not be in schools or any other place, it should be eradicated, it should be labeled as a thing for non intelligent minds. Clearly, our only salvation is to look away from the gross physical and seek the greater meaning of things.
[[A note from the Satirist: I'm not attacking you because of your anti-religious stance. I'm attacking you because your anti-religious stance appears to be based on one fact that is unverifiable at best (the relative dates of the origins of science and religion) and a string of blind assertions that aren't particularly in tune with reality either. You also make the implicit assumption that religion and science are somehow zero-sum and that destroying one will advance the other, which I find highly unlikely.
So, good sir, don't be offended because I object to your stance, be offended because I don't flinch from calling you a fucking idiot on a public forum, and hoping that you never, ever reproduce.
P.S. I'm not an english major myself, but I imagine your second-term english teacher (I'll be charitable as to your level of education in my language) is probably rolling in her grave right now.]]
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Oh, the in-humanity!
What is interesting about these discoveries is that it shows that apparently a diminutive brain size did not present as much of a barrier to humans leaving Africa as once thought. Remember, however, that Georgia, (the country, not the state, silly) is relatively close to Africa in Geographic terms, and we still have only a fuzzy idea about how quickly and in what manner erectus and later H. sapiens managed to migrate from Africa to the rest of the world.
My message is simple: Embrace science, reject religion and it's false promises. The afterlife is a lie. When you die that is it, you're dead.
You think you are a nihilist but your message is confused. If life is without meaning, then why be kind to your fellow man? What does it acheive? Wouldn't it be more clever to out compete or even kill him and get the most out of your life? Your reflex notion of treating your neighbor kindly without a thought of reward is Judeo-Christian. Considering the source, why don't you reject that idea as well? I am glad that many of history's greatest scientists and mathematicians are not like you. Most were motivated by believing the universe to be a place of order, but also beauty and meaning, and approached it with some humility. You embrace their results but reject their methods. Merry Christmas!
an ill wind that blows no good
Note that even in the "Seven Daughters of Eve" series of books, the team admits that the "out of Africa" theory is only a theory, and that there are other possible interpretations of the data.
From what I remember, "Out Of Asia" is a scenario that matches the data.
Pretty interesting.
Get off your soapbox and TRY to stay on topic.
Summary: Therefore we conclude that we really have no idea. The dates are really guesses. The brain that enabled them to eat meat is still missing. All we have is a tooth or two but that doesn't mean we cannot construct an entire picture of this creatures' friends, neighbourhood, what colors he or she preferred and what they had for breakfast. But that is science Jim ;-)
Karma? Sorry, i don't believe in superstition. http://talk.thinkingmatters.org.nz
That may be a joke, but historically there was a great deal of resistance to the afro-centric theory of human origins due to simple out-and-out racism. The asiatic origin was usually preferred by such people, as most of the racists were less uncomfortable being related to the 'cruel, inscrutable, yet clever' asians than to 'those dark-skinned savages.' More popular though was the theory that the racial groups were separate descendants from a common ancestor, with the non-white ones being 'degenerate' or 'lesser' forms. These theories are still extant in various racist circles, especially the latter.
Let's not forget our history now, especially the warts.
There sure are a lot of homo's in our ancestry. No wonder Christian fundamentalists are so against the idea we evolved from primates.
The problem has always been that there are two sorts of strong evidence: humans are almost all alike, and humans evolved in place. (E.g. early Australians were H. erectus; later they had mixed erectus and sap. characteristics; eventually the erectus features faded and vanished, leaving pure H. sap.) Naturally each had adherents who preferred to discount the others' evidence. The two have certainly seemed contradictory, up until now.
They were both right. What spread out of Africa was not actual populations of H. sap. etc., supplanting H. erectus populations that preceded them. Rather, successful gene complexes that define H. sap. spread out of Africa, upgrading local populations in-place. (Think of them as software patches.) Hardly anybody had to migrate any farther than the next village over. People married into neighboring villages, bringing their genetic advances with them, and the next generation brought them to the next village along. Of course successful genes could spread back to Africa, too, but Africa had the most variation, so produced more of the successful genes, and packaged them with more other, complementary genes.
Contrast this with the spread of agriculture into Europe, where there's evidence of farmers actually supplanting hunter/gatherers; and of course the historical record, with wholesale slaughters and genocides. (No doubt there was plenty of slaughtering earlier, but it takes technology, language, and civilized infantilization for genocides to be conducted efficiently.)
It doesn't seem like there are many other species in which this process would have worked. Bears, maybe.
In "Critical Path" Bucky Fuller described this kind of
senario. Makes you wonder about about the rest of the book
starting off that way but now it won't seem all that
strange.
Didn't they hear that Chemical Brothers song?
One either understands the empirical data and the theories which explain them, or one does not. "Belief", like your belief in God, isn't involved.
I find it odd whenever I come across this line of reasoning from the religious who attempt to find fault with a particular field of science, usually evolution. It sounds like you are saying, "Evolution is invalid because it's just like my religion."
/.: why the hell am I here?
You have two choices in figuring out the origin of the most basic form of life. It either spontaneously arose from some soup of chemicals we haven't quite figured out yet, or it was created by some other form of life, thought, or energy (or whatever).
So, you have a bit of a leap of faith in either case. You either have a single leap, which is that some chemicals could get together and accidentially (a one in billions of years shot) come up with a stable enough reaction to be the basis of life.....Or, you have the other flying leap of faith which requires you to invent an entire mythos, a super-being of a father figure, (and of course beg off the question of the origination of THAT life form -- its Turtles all the way down I suppose).
Personally, I choose the former. If not that, then perhaps its really all about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Maybe the Hokey-Pokey really is what its all about.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
In fact, most of them put in an entire day's work before I ever got up today. No wonder China is rocking like a hurricane!
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/12/16/dna_mutation_ account.html
as an aside, if this is true, I wonder what white supremacists say?? (chuckle)
We all know only the Mormons go to heaven.. Everybody else goes to hell.. unless god's armies need beefing up.
Stephen Mansfield, author of The Faith of George W. Bush, goes on to say: "Not long after, Bush called James Robison (a prominent minister) and told him, 'I've heard the call. I believe God wants me to run for President.' " Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention heard Bush say something similar: "Among the things he said to us was: I believe that God wants me to be president, but if that doesn't happen, it's OK.' "
Source
We are no longer fighting a great enemy, we are asserting a great principle: that the talents and dreams of average people - their warm human hopes and loves - should be rewarded by freedom and protected by peace. We are defending the nobility of normal lives, lived in obedience to God and conscience, not to government.
Source
In Dilip Hiro's book "Secrets and Lies," Hiro quotes the Tel Aviv newspaper Ha'aretz of June 24, 2003, reporting that Bush told Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas: "God told me to strike at Al Qaida (sic) and I struck them, and then He instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did."
Source
Of course, perhaps you can provide some sources that state otherwise?
/.: why the hell am I here?
Oh yeah, because that was really religion and all, and totally wasn't caused by people distorting their beliefs to fulfill personal political goals. I think it's silly to describe a nation by it's religion, because it is not universal, no matter how hard it tries to be (take a look at Iran, they've got ba'hais) unless you are saying that the country generally follows a specific religion. In that case, the US is most definitely a Christian nation, as well over half of the nation or more would describe itself as Christian. But I digress. A nation should not in any way, shape or form be governed, judged, or addressed by its religious beliefs, no matter how pervasive.
I am Spartacus
It's trickier than that. It's highly unlikely that there was only one woman. (Your post doesn't explicitly make that claim, but a lot of people misunderstand the subject to mean that.) It's possible for there to have been lots and lots of women, but because mitochondria are only passed from women to children, and because roughly half the kids are boys, it's possible to have, over a fifteen or twenty generation sequence, only one woman's mitochondria passed through. I'm working from "Patterns In Evolution" by Roger Lewin here, and, as a demo, he posits 16 couples, each of whom have two children, and tracking those through 15 generations.
"At each generation, one quarter of the mothers will have two male offspring, one quarter will have two females, and one half will have one of each. The mitochondrial lineages of mothers that have only males will come to an end and eventually one lineage will dominate the entire population."
In other words, the Eve hypothesis shows the region of origin of modern humanity, which is pretty clearly Africa, and tells us roughly when, assuming mitochondrial DNA information drift is relatively constant. It does not require a big population bottleneck. People probably assumed a bottleneck from an incomplete understanding of genetics and a certain wish to have a correlation with a well-known story (in the West) about a single mother of all humans.
The dude who did the original research, Alan Wilson, estimated there were probably over 10,000 women in the breeding community that contained the ancestral Eve. Other critics of the theory say you can't even make THAT claim.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
Oh. I, for one, read the 'f' as a 'p' and, oh, the imagery! But South Park already did it...
Most black people I know behave and think differently, and are consigned to ghettos in whatever country in the world they settle in. Rather than accept they may be deficient, they compound the problem by blaming everyone else. This is all very interesting, but the question of cultural and genetic differences between the races won't go away. If a small percentage can explain the difference between a banana and a human, why can't a small percentage explain the difference between blacks and everyone else?
Before anyone starts screaming racism, it's a fact that certain genetic traits create red haired people with a propensity for certain personality traits. If that's the case, what's with all the political correctness that says you can't discuss the characteristics of the black man in comparitive terms? To ignore it isn't science, it's religion. Between the social order or Asia and the industry of Europe, a lot has been achieved. I hate to think what the world would be like if the black man had gained the evolutionary upper hand.
It's the only conclusion I can come to.
...until highschool textbooks start teaching this conjecture as fact. Sounds all too familiar.
".. as previously thought."
That pretty much says it all, right there.
..in Korea only old people are primitive.
its ALOT easier to believe in 1 big miracle for the world/plants/animals/people to be here
than trillions of "evolutionary" miracles.
What miracles? Evolution is not a miracle, it is trillions of trial-and-errors with the best of those trials having more offspring. What on Earth is miraculous about that?
That really doesn't make sense, the way you worded it. But I just figured out what you were trying to say. My problem is your choice of the words "random" and "average." There is no average human. That doesn't make sense. You can't compare an individual with a population, but you can compare two populations with each other.
Let me try: There is such a wide degree of variance within human subpopulations (communities, races, ethnicities, whatever) that there is no statistical difference between human subpopulations. I.e., we have to accept the null hypothesis that there is no genetic difference between races.
Unfortunately, the differences that do exist (recessive genes in certain ethnicities) are pretty important. Otherwise there would be no Tay-Sachs, sickle-cell anemia, or any other genetic disorders caused by people marrying within their own isolated groups. To be fair, you should really look at the DNA that matters, the 1% or so that distinguishs us from other primates. And also realize that not all DNA is equally important. What if most of the variation in DNA is due to noncoding repeat units? Should that be counted? What if there was once much greater variation between ethnic groups, but that diversity was destroyed by, say, smallpox? Only those individuals with certain genes survived, regardless of ethnicity. In other words, an American Indian alive today is certainly not genetically representative of the "average" American Indian pre-conquest, given that at least 90% of all indigenous people in North America died from European diseases.
Esa joya, esa mina y esa finca y ese mar, ese paramilitar son propiedad del Señor Matanza
Slippery slope, that species boundary. Is it certain humans and chimps couldn't have fertile offspring? They have a different number of chromosomes, but apparently that doesn't always preclude baby makin'. But I'd never say humans and chimps were the same species, even if they did have fertile, very ugly, humpanzee babies.
Esa joya, esa mina y esa finca y ese mar, ese paramilitar son propiedad del Señor Matanza
It's because they spend all their time talking to Microsoft powered robots.
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
I feel that I'm gonna worry about this idea - especially if I eat too much this evening.
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
In Korea only old people do culture. They get it from talking with their robot companions.
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
In Korea only old people do expansionism. And they really do it too - my nanny weighed-in at 254 pounds; she was the most expanded person in Argentina, since she weighed only 94 pounds when she arrived. What were you saying about Jhong Huh?
How many beans make five, anyhow ?
I love that quote. Show me any evidence at all that the book you mention (which, by the way, is a mistranslation for political reasons of a mistranslation for political reasons of a bunch of documents compiled over hundreds of years by many different hands -- and that's just the New Testatment) has any supporting facts to indicate it was in fact written by the creator of our planet (why must there by a creator of our planet, by the way?) and I'll eat my hat.
By the way, "Because a lot of people believe it to be true" is not in fact proof of anything other than the fact that a lot of people believe it.
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeeded be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." --Einstein, Albert
...You're using the text with its own quotes, as testaments to itself!
I get emails all the time and they swear in thier own text that they are not spam. Oddly, many are in fact spam. Imagine that.
Look, I'm pleased as can be that you've found comfort for whatever ails or worries you in a belief system that if followed in a reasonably enlightened manner represents a generally good way of behaving toward others. So does the rule book of most of the other faiths with which I am aware.
I once had a conversation about the need for this with a Minister at a church in Waco where my sister was married. Of course, I was on my best behavior and wasn't tossing rude little bombs as I am here. It was my sister's wedding and they people had been good to her. She'd also warned them of the futility and the scene which would likely result if they pushed me with attempts to bring me to their belief system - as a result we all got along just fine. In any case, we had both been a little surprised that of all the toasts and advice being given, his and mine were the most similar. In fact, the way we both lived our lives with respect to how we treat other people and our own responsibilities were very similar. He asked me, then, why I didn't take the next step and believe as he does. My answer was quite simply that I do not need an entire mythos as a reason to behave well and do good things. It was enough for me to do good things because they are good things. To define them as good things (in other words, a source for moral direction) was simply that they were at worst harmless and at best helpful without being an imposition on those around me. By that definition, my morals mostly matched his. The problem, however, is that to accept his belief system I had to accept a great deal of what I find to be contradictory definitions of right and wrong, and a belief system enforced by rules and consequences which are themselves contradictory to those very rules. All of which, of course, is entirely superfluous. The very rules which govern the physical universe, whether you believe them to be predetermined by a supreme being or simply a result of random action, are such that simplicity is favored in all rules and explanations. The more simple the rule or law of nature, the more likely it is correct. The requirement for an entire mythos to explain its creation, and the very complexity of that explanation is itself a violation of those rules.
As long as you do good things and hurt nobody, please enjoy your belief system and if in the end you are right and I am wrong; I suppose you'll have the last laugh as I burn eternally in hell as retribution for not believing as you do -- regardless of how I've lived my life.
Of course, if you're having that laugh, it would be a "sin" under your belief system -- and if I'm burning forever in hell, I believe that whosoever made that happen would also be guilty of several "sins" under that same system. Perhaps those or He or makes those rules are above or better then them.
In the mean time, I'll continue to raise healthy, safe, and kind children; to volunteer my time as a firefighter; and to live my life in a manner which at worst hurts no one, and at best helps a few.
AP
The problem with quotes on the internet, is that nobody bothers to check their veracity. -- Abraham Lincoln
Offtopic? Did you bother responding to what I said? No. I realized that i made a mistake "after" hitting the submit button. Did pointing out my error make you feel like more of a man?
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
Did you mods not get the memo? You are supposed to concentrate on promoting rather than demoting.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
No. No one can possibly translate that shit into anything that makes any kind of sense.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Please review your data about this.
Most modern antropologists think that we came from Africa (earlier species went out of Africa and evolved elsewhere until they reached extinction, our branch evolved in Africa to finally spread to Europe and elsewhere).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The strongest evidence supporting our species' African origins comes actually from South Africa.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
A safari in any African country (I recommend Etosha in Namibia) would put to rest these silly ideas of yours.
Or you could read a book about Africa, human evolution and watch a few doumentaries about African wildlife. Hint: no animals are ever eating fruits, not even the chimps (ok, they do some times).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I have been to Africa (Namibia, South Africa) and have seen the effects that unfair competition is having in African farmers.
It is killing the bussiness of the few farmers that managed to get capital to invest on their farms.
If this was fair competition I would say they have to suck it up and deal with it, but the immorality of it all is not justifiable in the terms you explain it.
Several African countries were perfectly self sufficient and the farms were providing badly needed employment. Unfair agricultural subsidies are only creating a dependency that was not there, very handy in term of geopolitical dominance and appeasing a vocal minority of voters back in Western developped countries, disastrous for the economic independence of African nations.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
"There is no hypothesis and no testing going on."
Sounds like 10th grade biology, to me:
We memorized a limited amount of classification nomenclature.
Raised maggots (which, incidentally, left fruit flies all over the school for a while).
We collected flowers.
We developed no hypotheses, nor did we test anyone else's.
And yet, virtually anyone would still classify the class as a "science class."
Then again, maybe the instructor tried to get us to hypothesize and test, but we were as self absorbed as most other people and didn't notice.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.