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 ... '"
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!
Yes, it is a fact that blood has been spilled over religion. More blood, in fact, than over any other cause. It shouldn't matter why we are good,kind people, whether its the belief in heaven, or just being nice. All that matters is that we are helping people.
Purple, because ice cream has no bones.
Ah yes, but religion is so CONVENIENT. It means that often the believer needs to make no personal moral decisions (your religion makes absolute moral decisions for you), and everyone's split into two camps: People that are going to Heaven (usually believers) and people that are going to Hell (usually everyone else). Often the sheer convenience and lifelong training in a religion overrides a personal quest for scientific truth.
Furthurmore, in times where science would say to you "Hey man, you're 100% screwed!" religion can give a more optimistic answer. It's easy to decry religion when you're sitting in front of your LCD or CRT, but it's can give hope to the otherwise hopeless if they think that an all-powerful, all-knowing being is watching over their backs ready to send them to paradise when they die.
I have no problem with religion whatsoever. However, I think that religion should stay in churches (for example) and science should stay in schools, universities, etc. Everything has its time and place.
http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
Wow... I'm stunned by such arrogance. Are you blind to the fact that your are just replacing one god with another? You took a story about scientist finding evidence that humans may have originated in Asia and turned it into an anti-God tirade in an attempt to make yourself feel good about your own opinion. Wow...
Why is it so hot? Where am I going? What am I doing in this handbasket?
"There is not enough love and goodness in the world for us to be permitted to give any of it away to imaginary things."
-- Nietzsche
Are you...Are you some kind of genius?
No, ma'am, I'm just a regular Slashdot reader.
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.
For example, science isn't to blame for the atom bomb, that would have been invented by some means or other eventually (unless religious wars killed everyone first). Science just meant America invented it first (because they did the best science). Now everyone hates America even though they're the most benign world power in human history, mostly because they value rationalism and capitalism above religion or quasi-religious politics.
As for religion, it usually accomodates scientific discoveries after opposing them for about 50-100 years. The ID debarcle is unusual and serves as a warning to society that whilst we stive to accomodate a wide range of ideas, we must still be willing to detect and reject bullshit when it lands on our plate.
Intelligent Design is something most Christians reject and even a lot of fundamental Christians reject. Intelligent Design was created for political purposes and no religion has publicly supported the theory. You know when Rick Santorum hates Intelligent Design, it is dead. After the Bush clan leaves office, we will never hear about it again.
Most major religions do not reject the idea of evolution. After all God could have created man through evolution. Fundamental Christians (Bible literalists) actually believe God everything in seven days. Most other Christian religions don't interpret the Book of Genesis literally.
To say Christians are against science is nonsense. Some of the greatest scientists of our times were Christians.
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.
Yeah because man wouldn't have wars if it wasn't for religion. All of John Lennon's lyrics are true if you just "imagine". If men were all the same except some people had blue eyes and other brown eyes, there would be wars between brown eye people and blue eyed people.
You seem to have a cartoon view of Christians I won't be able to change but go ahead and live in ignorance.
Why can't intelligent design and evolution co-exist? Why does it always have to be either one or the other? Evolution itself may be by design. Perhaps humans came from both Africa, Asia and maybe even elsewhere. As a Muslim, I believe that God created all that exists. However, my faith does not prevent me from believing in scientific facts. I see evolution as something programmed in to life in order to survive. Every so often it may have had a boost here and there.
Poor Australia, nobody ever remembers you.
You talk of science and religion as if they were mutually-exclusive things. Most scientists would disagree with you.
Why should I? Based on your thinking why should I be nice to anyone unless it serves my own self-interest. Why should I follow the rule of law, etc? Why shouldn't I just become a totally self-centered anarchist--kill or be killed? Survival of the fittest and all that, right? Where in evolutionary theory does it tell me that I have to or even necessarily should be 'nice' to anyone? Just because you want me to and it might make your life better?
I'm not flaming you, I would just like to find out an atheists opinion on these particulars regarding their stance. Thanks.
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.
There are few modern human traits more galling than this belief that "early man" was a primitive idiot who was lucky to not piss on his own feet.
It so often ends up underpinning stupid theories about aliens building pyramids or landing strips and whatnot. All because the idea that those "primitive savages" could have understood concepts like engineering or surveying (or in this case, sailing) is so unbelievable to them.
Oh god...eyes bleeding. WTF?!?!?! Can someone translate crazy for me so this makes some semblence of sense?
"Science is a religion my friend." Let me guess, you haven't actually been in a laboratory have you?
"...only for it to be disproved when we get better technology and find a better matching pattern." And this is why science isn't a religion, it allows itself to be disproven and continually questions its findings. Religion by neccessity doesn't question the validity of its founding documents, and therefore is the complete opposite of science.
"they fail to understand what science is" but you already told us, it is just a religion. And, hey, you got modded insightful so you must be right about that.
You don't have to believe in God to be a nice person.
Social group are needed for a spieces to continue, and grow. People who behave in the manners you suggested tend to get removed from the group. So there is an evolutionary method for weeding that behaviour out. Bear in mind evolution is an ongoing process, and not something that happened and now is done.
Of course, being nice is required for a society to continue as well, so it is in the interest of th next generation that people are nice.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You are no less ignorant, friend. Your characterization of science as merely blind guessing reveals a deep misunderstanding. Science is not a religion because it's innacurate and old theories are superseded by new ones. This is is built in to science. It is intended to be this way. That's key to the scientific method. Science does not work in absolutisms as does religion. However, it is a pretty safe bet to say that a few things are unlikely to be disproven, and evolution is one of those. We understand its workings fairly well, though this is not to say that we completely do. We're almost certainly wrong on some of the specifics, perhaps even some of the basics. But in general, everything points in that direction. How often will you find someone willing to say that about their religion?
The current theory still holds that modern Native Americans are very largely descended from Siberian peoples crossing Beringia (the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska). What has changed is the recognition that there were earlier migrants who came to the Americas before an ice-free route from Beringia into the interior of North America was available. There is a good deal of evidence that there were ice-free pockets along the coastline and that earlier populations managed to get into the Americas via boats. The archaeological data is still pretty minimal, and legal battles over skeletal remains and sites have thrown something of a crimp in this investigation.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
> 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.
The problem is, regional DNA sampling world-wide has given us a pretty good map of the spread of modern human from Africa. If they originated in Asia, we've really missed something.
Google for WorldMigrations.pdf to see an example.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I suspect that one of the reasons for this is simple... most of their tools and cultural artifacts were made of organic substances: wood, leather, bone and horn. Thus they simply didn't leave a lot for us to find that survived the millennia.
Therefore, people have this image of naked, tool-less man-apes drooling on themselves. Silly. Ancient peoples were (at most) only marginally less clever than ourselves... and I'm willing to bet that living without technology in an environment that's constantly trying to kill you would be conducive to some pretty amazing problem solving.
Besides, for something like sailing, you don't need everyone to succeed. They may have failed ten thousand times before a breeding population finally survived. The arch of time is vast.
m-
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
Dogs don't act like that.
You've never seen a bunch of starving dingos around a dead horse, I'm guessing.
m-
You catch enchiladas by picking them up behind the head and holding them underwater until they don't kick anymore -VeGas
I dunno about western culture. Here in the Northwest region of America, every block there is either Indian, Sushi, Thai, Teriyaki or Chinese food. If you watch movies like the Matrix, you see Asian influenced martial arts. If you play video games you are most likely playing a Nintendo or a Playstation. If you watch cartoons, you are most likely watching a Japanese animated story.
It's a myth that the Chinese didn't use gun powder as weapons. In fact they did. In fact the idea of a Chinese person is also a myth. It's like the myth of an American person. That's why they are successful. They were one of the first places that took disparate groups and held it under one rule as one people, even though quite a few of the inhabitants spoke different languages and were of differerent "races". You might argue that the Romans did that as well, but they failed to hold on to it.
"Why should I? Based on your thinking why should I be nice to anyone unless it serves my own self-interest. Why should I follow the rule of law, etc? Why shouldn't I just become a totally self-centered anarchist--kill or be killed? "
Being nice to people is in your self-interest, because usually they will be nice to you. If you are mean to people, your reputation will quickly spread, and people will be mean to you.
People are interested in fairness, and mostly you will get treated the same way you treat others. If you deal with strangers all the time, it won't matter, but if you might see that person again sometime, or perhaps even every day, you will probably worry about what they think of you and therefore how they will treat you.
"Survival of the fittest and all that, right?"
That's right. We do still live in the jungle. Just step into South Central LA or the middle of the Amazon some time. However, in most places of the world, there is an official gang of tough guys who are called the police. The police are for the most part fair and honest. But they are not afraid to use force and kill people to keep the peace. In LA or the jungle, there are many gangs fighting each other, and none of them are interested in keeping the peace. Most people find that their life is a lot eaier if they side with the police gang instead of any of the others.
" Where in evolutionary theory does it tell me that I have to or even necessarily should be 'nice' to anyone? Just because you want me to and it might make your life better?"
Evolutionary theory says that anyone who can get along with other people will have a better chance of finding food, a receptive mate, and successfully raising children or grandchildren has better reproductive success. If you help someone, that person and everyone else will know about it, and they will help you. Loners who fight everyone and are only in it for themselves die alone, with no children.
Human beings are a group animal. Like ants or prarie dogs, we can't really make it on our own. People who can work co-operatively in groups fare better and therefore have more children than loners. Co-operative groups thereby outperform loners.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
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
Take a look at your dollar bills "In god we thrust",
Yes, the "In God We Trust" was placed on the money in the 50s to show how America was better than the "godless commies." It was a mistake, but one that will never be rectified, because no one wants to be painted as "voting against God."
how can a country be cosmopolite if there is a predominant religion
The same way every other civilized country does. Hate to tell you this, but most people believe in a god.
which I bet your constitution embraces.
The Consititution of the United States doesn't. It doesn't mention gods at all. It specifically provides for freedom of religion and forbids the establishment of one. It was written by deists, agnostics, and athiests. And back in the 18th century it was evangelicals who were pushing for seperate of church and state since they were afraid that episcopalians would force their religion on them. Ironic isn't it?
You don't know what you're talking about here. You should get your facts straight, and then make a more coherent argument than "It sucks." Because you look fool.
I even tend to agree with your general argument, but you're making all athiests look bad. So do us all a favor, and shut up.
On the other hand, God has seeded the earth with all this "evidence" (geological records, useless organs, similar features across species, etc.) that all these things happened on their own. Seems to me that God would rather we not believe in him and that belief in God is against His will. How can you be sure that the non-believers won't be rewarded for making good use of the rational abilities He so kindly supplied us with? Or that believers won't be punished for ignoring the vast pile of consistent evidence before them?
Blood has rarely been spilled over religion. its spilled over stupid people that coop religion for their own purposes. Just like they coopt everything else.
Still, something in your understandings and beliefs compels you to act civily, what is it?
The ability to empathize with other human beings. It's actually hardwired into the brain, a fact that was established decades ago. People without this particular wiring (about 2% of the population) are defective in this regard and grow up as sociopaths. A PET scan can identify if the area of the brain we identify as governing ethical conduct is working correctly or not.
If we have normal brains, we're born with the ability to empathize with other human beings, which motivates us to (at least some of the time) act in ways that minimize harm to them. Most of us see wanton cruelty as a bad thing for this very reason.
You didn't form your concepts of 'nice' (as everyone has so kindly put it) in a vacuum did you? Of course not...
I didn't get them from religion, either. Growing up I thought the religious were full of shit, especially concerning all that "god will punish you" crap. It seemed to me (and still does) that the religious are far more likely to use their faith as an excuse to do evil to others rather than good for them. I initially came to this conclusion at the ripe old age of 3, when a priest proclaimed that my parents were sinful and would go to hell, upon which I tried to bean the bastard with one of my shoes before the entire congregation.
Conscience, knowledge imparted to you, and experience has lead you to certain beliefs, have they not?
Being human is enough, assuming you don't have a miswired brain. Humans aren't blank slates, not even close.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Gods are make believe. Grow up.
Trolling is a art,