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 ... '"

21 of 622 comments (clear)

  1. Not completely unreasonable by clambake · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re: Not completely unreasonable by Evil+Pete · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Another point to consider is that this idea that humans arose in Asia has a long history. Traditionally, scholars thought humans arose in Asia because according to the Bible Paradise was in the East. Doesn't mean this has anything to do with it, but once these memes get ingrained in society they pop up from time to time.

      If humans started in Asia then maybe we just haven't found a suitable fossil site as rich as those in Africa. However, for my money I'm betting on Africa. Where are the nastiest parasites of human beings ? There are some doozies in Africa. And where did most of the megafauna survive after the appearance of H. sap? That would be where the local wildlife was used to them.

      About the GP comment. The existence of pottery != civilisation. The Beaker People made pottery (of course :) but were not a civilisation by any stretch. And cultures can be pretty static for a long time, people were just as smart (or smarter) during the last ice age but didn't have the right conditions for civilisation (see: Guns, Germs and Steel). And, haven't the Japanese finds been disputed?

      Also the date of origin of a civilisation (thousands of years ago) says nothing about where the species started millions of years ago. And on the issue of dates, why are they comparing the Flores finds (c. 18,000 years old) with finds of 1.7 million? Makes no sense.

      --
      Bitter and proud of it.
  2. Re:On the first day.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Yeah, I would really like it if churches didn't include science. That would mean they wouldn't include any engineering (physics being a physical science) and they would all fall down or never get built in the first place and it would eliminate much of my objection to organized religion, especially the Jehovah-worshipping types; If God is everywhere, why the hell is a Church a "house of God" and why isn't the money spent on building the church going to a much more modest structure where people can congregate, and then actually helping people? And for that matter, if God created all matter, why is some matter (like "precious" metals and stones) more fit for church decorations than some other matter? Au ain't any more holy than Pb.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. birthplace by hostingreviews · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What puzzles me is how remote volcanic islands became inhabited. Hawaii for example. Theres no way early man could have sailed there.

  4. Re:On the first day.. by xtracto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Everything has its time and place.

    Religion had its time before science started to explain the natural world phenomena. In the beggining humans attributed the power of thunder, earth and fire to mighty gods, it is on our nature to attribute to an allmigthy deitity the things that we can not (yet) understand.

    Science has progressed a lot since those times. Since the inquisition or the Roman or Greek (or Mayan, or any other kind of ) gods. There was a small development from politheist to monotheist religions. And the worshiped books are nothing more than laws used to rule over the people that did not believed (or did not have) an established society

    It is because of this that Religion has had its time. Of course, our current society structure is not optimal, it is not the best but it is better. Science might also not explain all things we see in the universe but instead of going backwards and begin to attribute them again the this "deitity" humans should continue to develop knowledge.

    I do not have a position as neutral as yours about Religion. For me, religion sucks, all kind of religion is stupid and do not have any fundaments or basis. Religion has been used only as means of control, this can be seen now on your current government (if you are from USA). Your president is seeding terror on you by means of religion. And this is because your politics and your society is deeply rooted on religious grounds.

    Take a look at your dollar bills "In god we thrust", how can a country be cosmopolite if there is a predominant religion which I bet your constitution embraces.

    I repeat, religion sucks, someone will surely tell me that religion does not sucks 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 religion since human created it. It is a tool (and very powerful) to control masses of people.

    Religion should not be in churches or any other place, it should be erradicated, it should be labeled as a thing for non intelligent minds.

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  5. Re:Is 200 thousand years not enough? by Decaff · · Score: 2, Interesting

    so, the theory assumes that 200,000 years is not enough for such a migration?

    And, of course, talk of 'migration' is nonsense. It would have been more like 'hey, it is getting a bit crowded here, let's find a cave or tree a bit further away'. A few thousand generations of this and a species can spread a long way!

  6. Motel Of The Mysteries by Wikipedia · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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/
  7. Re:In parallel? by Shihar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It is believed that at one point the population of the human race was knocked down to a few thousand. This is backed up with genetic testing. Humans are extremely similar in terms of genetics. There is more difference between two random humans in the same race, then there is between two average humans of different races. In other words, if were to average all the genetics of each individual race, you would find that they are more similar to each other then difference you find between humans due to natural variation. It is pretty conclusive that humans all descend from the same few thousand people.

  8. Re:In parallel? by deathcloset · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The "Eve" theory is evidenced by mitochondrial DNA.

    We are all related to some nice lady from about 150,000 years ago. that's EVERYONE, mind you.

    DNA doesn't lie. Modern homosapiens are all from the same place.

  9. Re:On the first day.. by Hans+Lehmann · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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?

    Imagine two civilizations. One is more or less cooperative, there is strife and people have to struggle to survive, but in general they have laws and don't attack each other without a very good reason. They live by the golden rule, even when it's not always in their own best interest.
    The other civilization, on the other hand, is completely anarchistic; every person will kill their neighbor at the drop of a hat to take their food. The only penalty for doing so it that they may kill you first while you're sleeping and take your food.
    Which civilization do you think will survive the longest?

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  10. Re:Except for the other guys... by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Interesting
    We certainly do have a real clue, a number of real clues in fact. The genetic data is clear, all extant human populations are closely related, so much so that the genetic distance between even the most remote populations is much less than what we find among neighboring chimpanzee populations in Africa. The key evidence here is that the greatest diversity among human populations is in sub-Saharan Africa, which, if you are to make any prediction, would indicate that those are the oldest populations, and thus H. sapiens comes from sub-Saharan Africa.

    Other lines of evidence involve archaeology and evolutionary psychology, and we find in Africa the earliest signs of decoration and art, key to the idea that Africa is where the earliest humans that behaved like us arose. These "psychological" traits spread from Africa much like modern genes, and demonstrate with a high degree of probability that Africa was the home of the first morphologically and behaviorally modern humans.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  11. early humans by Zulu · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.

  12. Re:On the first day.. by Miaowara_Tomokato · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Kudos to the funny comeback however everything about the human body is needed in order for us to survive except for the appendix it seems. We couldn't have one thing develop without having something else as well, which goes against evolution which implies gradual changes. We need all of our organs and all the capabilities that our cells have to differentiate, multiply, copy dna, etc. is all needed at the same time so gradual changes would not suffice for us to exist based solely on evolution.

    Come again? I don't know about everyone else but I've read this three times and can't identify either what point you are trying to make or the logic you are using to arrive at it. Please restate for the slower of us?

  13. Re:On the first day.. by bmalia · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Take a look at your dollar bills "In god we thrust", how can a country be cosmopolite if there is a predominant religion which I bet your constitution embraces.

    Yes, it also has an illuminati "all seeing eye" symbol called the Shining Delta with the words: "Novus Ordo Seclorum ( which can be translated to 'a new order of the ages')". The eye signifies the Illuminati's "all-seeing" infiltration of government and community. The triangle (or delta) around the eye is the mathematical symbol for change (the Illuminati's ultimate goal was to bring about massive change in the form of a secular New World Order.) And finally, the rays of light shining off the triangle signify enlightenment and illumination (i.e., intellectual freedom from the dangerous "myth" of religion.)

    Just goes to show that the church wasn't the only influential group in America's founding fathers.

    --
    There's no place like ~/
  14. Re:On the first day.. by e2ka · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Even though that's better than eternal suffering, it's still a pretty bad thing once you've found out that you could have had eternal life if you'd only believed.

    Because of course God would be way too stupid to know that you were only a believer so that you could reap the rewards...

    How about this twist: If you are a believer and you turn out to be wrong, you've wasted your whole life (the only one you had) believing in a fantasy and applying all the accompanying restrictions. Essentially, your whole life was based on a lie.

  15. Re:On the first day.. by xtracto · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I live in the US, I can not see anything the government is doing to indicate it is using religeon to control people.


    Then you should stop sticking your head inside your ass:

    "I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it."

    "God told me to strike at al Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam [Hussein], which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

    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.

    --
    Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
  16. Re:It doesn't matter... by HungWeiLo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The two speak different languages, eat different foods, and have somewhat different cultures

    It's even more complex than that. Many towns would speak mutually unintelligible dialects, even if they're only 15-20 miles away from each other. Did you know that there are several million natives in Guangdong province that does not speak a word of Cantonese?

    What most Westerners think is the "Chinese" language and culture is actually that of the southern Chinese particularly from the Guangdong region of China. The Chinese written language is what unites all the people in China.

    This is mostly due to the fact that almost all early migrants from China to the West were from southern Chinese provinces (Guangdong, Fujian, etc.) In most Chinatowns in the West, all of the older people will speak their native Southern (mostly Cantonese-derived) dialect. It has been this way for the last 150-200 years. Of course, this will change as more immigrants from mainland China and Taiwan migrate to the West.

    --
    There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
  17. Re:On the first day.. by notasheep · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Kudos to the funny comeback however everything about the human body is needed in order for us to survive except for the appendix it seems. We couldn't have one thing develop without having something else as well, which goes against evolution which implies gradual changes. We need all of our organs and all the capabilities that our cells have to differentiate, multiply, copy dna, etc. is all needed at the same time so gradual changes would not suffice for us to exist based solely on evolution."

    Good point! After all, we can't survive without all of our limbs, eyes, lungs, kidneys, etc. Oh, wait, yes we can.

    BTW - evolution isn't based on gradual changes. It's based on genetic mutations that can result in small or big changes. Those changes remain in the gene pool if they aid in the reproductive success of the species.

    Also, I can't really understand you intelligent designers. You say life is too complex to have "just happened." Yet, you're happy to believe that your creator, with the power and complex knowledge necessary to create life, has always just existed...

    --
    Your mind looks a little cramped. Why don't you stretch it a little?
  18. Already solved by Markus+Registrada · · Score: 4, Interesting
    It's surprising that this comes out now. The origins of modern humanity were explicated just a few months ago, and the loose ends have already been tied up.

    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.

    1. Re:Already solved by radtea · · Score: 3, Interesting

      (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.)

      Your argument would be stronger if there were any non-controversial evidence for H. erectus in Australia:

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/kowswamp.html

      But I take that to be an unfortunately-choosen hypothetical example, rather than an actual error.

      Your position is not entirely-dissimilar to the old The Multiregional Evolution Model: http://www.geocities.com/palaeoanthropology/Herect us.html

      Gene complexes hardly ever travel without organisms wrapped around them, so what you seem to be arguing for is a specific mechanism for multi-regional evolution. It isn't impossible, but whatever happened is radically under-determined by the data, and it is very likely that we are quite wrong about at least some major components of any story we tell about human evolution.

      For example, it is virtually certain that H. sapiens evolved much earlier than the earliest currently-known examples, simply because the sampling rate due to fossilazation and discovery is so fantastically low. The sum total of H. sapiens fossils antedating 10000 years ago is only a few dozen, out of hundreds of thousands or more inviduals who lived over the early history of our species. The odds of us just happening to have found a skeleton from the very earliest period, when the smallest numbers of individuals would be around, is very unlikely.

      Indeed, the apparent concordance between the current "earliest human skeleton" (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/0502 23122209.htm) and the most-likely genetic date based on mitocondrial DNA is so improbable as to be disturbing.

      I am therefore betting we will eventually find that H. sapiens evolved much earlier, but went through a genetic bottleneck 200,000 years ago, giving us our most recent common ancestor. Such bottlenecks can be seen in a lot of North American fauna, where you frequently see populations that can be traced back to a single, small, non-diverse population 10,000 years ago that was in a geographically-restricted range due to the last ice age.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
  19. Re:On the first day.. by operagost · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Yeah, I would really like it if churches didn't include science. That would mean they wouldn't include any engineering (physics being a physical science) and they would all fall down
    This is a ridiculous straw man. Christianity is not anti-science and no Christian denies the laws of physics.

    The fact that institutions like the Roman Catholic Church waste resources on baubles does not devalue the Word. Citing fancy churches as evidence against God demonstrates your ignorance of the Bible and Christianity in general.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.