Slashdot Mirror


An Asian Origin For Human Ancestors?

InfiniteZero writes "Researchers agree that our immediate ancestors, the upright walking apes, arose in Africa. But the discovery of a new primate that lived about 37 million years ago in the ancient swamplands of Myanmar bolsters the idea that the deep primate family tree that gave rise to humans is rooted in Asia. If true, the discovery suggests that the ancestors of all monkeys, apes, and humans—known as the anthropoids—arose in Asia and made the arduous journey to the island continent of Africa almost 40 million years ago."

125 comments

  1. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You need to study your racial slurs.

  2. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Jethro, get offuh Slashdot! Gonna be late for the Klan meetun!

  3. I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've always felt humans are one of those "freak animals" that develop on isolated islands like platypus or finches with giant beaks or whatever. We were probably trapped on some remote island and developed these giant freak brains and then eventually managed to escape and spread out across the planet.

    1. Re:I agree by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2

      We were probably trapped on some remote island ...

      We are trapped inside this gravity well

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    2. Re:I agree by wisty · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Humans aren't that freaky. We are pretty much identical to chimps, with slightly better communication hardware.

      Perhaps complex communication triggered divergent evolution. Humans (well, proto-human talking chimps) work well together, but not with normal chimps. Normal chimps had advantages though - they could communicate far faster. Simple communication is a good thing if all you want to say is "LEOPARD!!!!".

      Once we'd diverged, the talking apes found they were better off in the savanna and beaches than the forest (where speed is more important than strategy).

    3. Re:I agree by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      yelling "run" seems to be to swift and simple enough

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    4. Re:I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, not yelling anything but getting the heck out of Dodge is the best strategy.

      CAPTCHA = barbaric

    5. Re:I agree by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      Not in a social setting. The hero who saves all the young females by yelling run/danger/leopard becomes the center of attention and gets all kinds of benefits. Extra grooming, food treats, more sex and offspring.

      Pretty good deal if you ask me.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    6. Re:I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Humans aren't that freaky. We are pretty much identical to chimps, with slightly better communication hardware.
      And better haircuts. Don't forget that!

    7. Re:I agree by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2
      Humans are physically pretty weird for primates. We're the only ones built for walking on two legs efficiently. The communication thing is one of degree as much as kind: many primates vocalize a lot and communicate a lot.

      Perhaps complex communication triggered divergent evolution. Humans (well, proto-human talking chimps) work well together, but not with normal chimps. Normal chimps had advantages though - they could communicate far faster. Simple communication is a good thing if all you want to say is "LEOPARD!!!!".

      Or we're descended from the few who understood when one of the walking, talking apes came back into the forest and said, "DUDE! There's a whole f***ing WORLD out there!"

    8. Re:I agree by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      You left out that we have huge peckers!

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    9. Re:I agree by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Humans aren't that freaky. We are pretty much identical to chimps, with slightly better communication hardware.

      Actually, I think that idea has pretty much been discredited with the discovery of "Ardi", the oldest direct human ancestor ever found, that was actually more like a human than a chimp. If anything, chimps evolved MORE from that common ancestor than humans did, despite the similarity in the genome.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    10. Re:I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Humans aren't that freaky. We are pretty much identical to chimps, with slightly better communication hardware.

      And, believe it or not *enormously* better impulse control

    11. Re:I agree by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that's not weird. We're the envy of apes everywhere. Or at least I am...

    12. Re:I agree by jedwidz · · Score: 2

      Neoteny accounts for a lot of the differences between chimps and humans.

      In a sense that's not even divergent evolution, as humans are just discarding the specializations that chimps develop as they mature, rather than replacing them with a different set of specializations.

      Skull question: Which two of these skulls are the most similar?

    13. Re:I agree by meglon · · Score: 1

      proto-human talking chimps

      So, you're saying that Lancelot Link was THE MAN!... quite a while before there were men....

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    14. Re:I agree by sexconker · · Score: 2

      Not in a social setting. The hero who saves all the young females by yelling run/danger/leopard becomes the center of attention and gets all kinds of benefits. Extra grooming, food treats, more sex and offspring.

      Pretty good deal if you ask me.

      The guy who gets sex is the big guy who beats on his women. Just like in ye olde cave days.
      Nice guys finish last, white knights get friend zoned, etc.

    15. Re:I agree by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      Many thanks for the new knowledge that I've gained from your tremendously useful comment !!

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    16. Re:I agree by Ghaoth · · Score: 1

      Most should be captured and put back on an island, preferably a sinking one.

      --
      Nos Morituri te salutamus
    17. Re:I agree by Phrogman · · Score: 1

      So nothings changed then. In my HS the guys with all the girls paying attention to them were the biggest and stupidest assholes :P

      --
      "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
    18. Re:I agree by schroedingers_hat · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself.

    19. Re:I agree by jdgeorge · · Score: 1

      In a sense that's not even divergent evolution, as humans are just discarding the specializations that chimps develop as they mature, rather than replacing them with a different set of specializations.

      Nah, it's just that humans don't live long enough. :-)

    20. Re:I agree by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Nah, something major changed - most modern women would rather have a man all to themselves than be part of the harem of the biggest, baddest guy on the block, and that's rather uncommon among primates. Most recent theory I've heard is that at some point underdog males hit upon the idea of picking a single/few female(s) to pamper, and the idea caught on well enough to reshape the species

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    21. Re:I agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I read the URL to TFA as "...an-asian-origin-for-human-Incest.html".

      Freaky!

  4. Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... by BoRegardless · · Score: 4, Informative

    as we all came from a single cell organism.

    1. Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... by k(wi)r(kipedia) · · Score: 1

      ...and further back than that: we came from a single incredibly dense point of matter.

    2. Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 0

      ...and further back than that: we came from a single incredibly dense point of matter.

      .... and if we go further back than that: all these came from literally nothing

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    3. Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Its turtles all the way down!

    4. Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... by ohnocitizen · · Score: 1

      Do you mean the origin of life on Earth, or our human ancestors? Either way the answer is RL'YEH!

    5. Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, if we try to go further back we fail. We do not currently have enough information to do more than suggest what happened before the "big bang" it is not like there is much left of "before" (if time even works such that that word means something in this context) that event. Current thinking is that there may have been something, but what is anyone guess.

    6. Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL
      signed :The Prime Mover.

    7. Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... by dark12222000 · · Score: 1

      "Further back" when applied to "The big bang" may not even make sense. Time may not have had meaning or existed prior to the Big Bang. Though, this is all theory.

    8. Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Or to put it another way time is a metric that exists in the universe and just like space, it doesn't exist apart from the universe... as far as we can tell from in here.

    9. Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Further back" when applied to "The big bang" may not even make sense. Time may not have had meaning or existed prior to the Big Bang. Though, this is all theory.

      Actually everything since the Big Bang (or shortly thereafter) is theory. Everything before is conjecture.

    10. Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      I thought it was caused by a collision of M-Branes.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    11. Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, I like to believe that too. However, string theory and hence m theory are nothing more than wild speculation. There is currently no evidence that it is correct, nor are there any experiments that we know we can do yet to find out. String theory is beautiful and I hope that it is true. However, you can't go around calling it fact until you have a lot of experimental evidence.

    12. Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how can an event (creation) occur if there were no time in which it could occur? That's a realllllyyyyyy bizarre thought. There was forever of no-time and then an event happened where time was created and stuff could happen? There are so many contadictions in that sentence, but can it be expressed another way?

    13. Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... by bmo · · Score: 1

      So how can an event (creation) occur if there were no time in which it could occur? That's a realllllyyyyyy bizarre thought. There was forever of no-time and then an event happened where time was created and stuff could happen?

      No, there was a time, or not-time, or however it may be described, that we can't describe in any meaningful manner because it was not part of this universe. Whatever is in the metaverse, or whatever we use to describe what is "outside" cannot be described by the rules of this universe. It is literally undefinable from "in here." It sounds circular, but you can't describe things you cannot see or measure.

      It's like trying to describe what goes on at the singularity of a black hole. You can't.

      --
      BMO

    14. Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i highly doubt we all came from one single type of single cell organism.

      more likely there were multiple original species, given how free bacteria and viruses can be with DNA...
      could easily have developed seperately, isolated...and then what happened when they did meet? did they compete? or did they do like some simple bacteria still do, and swap DNA in a primordial orgy?

      hell. life may have even started multiple times, at different times, given the vast amount of time we're talking about even with our own planet, and its size too. maybe they all (simple organisms) died out multiple times...or maybe a few survived, and they were compatible with the new ones...parallel evolution tends to find similar, very similar, methods.

    15. Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... by TheLink · · Score: 2

      Think of starting up a universe simulation on a computer. Those in the simulation experience time according to the simulation. Those outside the simulation can pause the simulation, or even restart it, and those in the simulation wouldn't know. The creation of a simulation can still occur even in the absence of simulation time.

      Of course, this does not mean that our universe is a simulation or works like that. This is just to show how it can be possible for something to occur even if there's no time.

      --
  5. Oceanic origin for human ancestors? by k(wi)r(kipedia) · · Score: 1, Interesting
    From TFA:

    Kay, however, says the scales are tipping toward an Asian origin. "We've all heard about Out-of-Africa for human origins," adds Beard. "Now we think there was an Out-of-Asia migration into Africa first."

    Well, since we're tracing the origin of our species anyway, why not simply say our ancestors came from the sea? You can't get any further back than that, unless you think that life migrated from outer space.

    1. Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Indeed. It's a ludicrous headline, typical for the kind of hyperbole of science journalism.

      Humans originate from Africa. Where very ancient primates originate from is another question, and isn't all that relevant to the particular issue of human origins. This moronic story has a headline that sounds like somebody is trying to reinvoke the multi-regional hypothesis.

      Shame on Slashdot. Shame on the fucking retard who wrote the article.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 0

      Shame on Slashdot. Shame on the fucking retard who wrote the article.

      How much censorship are you rooting for ?
       

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    3. Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. It's a ludicrous headline, typical for the kind of hyperbole of science journalism.

      Humans originate from Africa. Where very ancient primates originate from is another question, and isn't all that relevant to the particular issue of human origins. This moronic story has a headline that sounds like somebody is trying to reinvoke the multi-regional hypothesis.

      Shame on Slashdot. Shame on the fucking retard who wrote the article.

      You're a little angry about this.

    4. Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? by tverbeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The headline makes no suggestion of multiregional origin. You misinterpreted it; any shame should be on you for that error.

      The out-of-Africa hypothesis implies that our ancestry – back as far as we can meaningfully trace it – was entirely in Africa (back as far as that designation is also meaningful). If it turns out that our primate ancestors instead evolved elsewhere, and relocated there, that is relevant to the question of human origins, because.... it's a part of that origin.

      Oh, and GTFU.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    5. Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? by samoanbiscuit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If it turns out that our primate ancestors instead evolved elsewhere, and relocated there, that is relevant to the question of human origins, because.... it's a part of that origin.

      No, you said it yourself: "as far back as we can meaningfully trace". It seems that there is some ambiguity with some of the early hominin ancestors, but basically, humans and their immediate predecessors originate from Africa. This is what happens when computer geeks think they're fully qualified to talk about paleo-anthropology or other messy science things that don't involve mathematical proofs.

    6. Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. It's a ludicrous headline, typical for the kind of hyperbole of science journalism.

      Humans originate from Africa. Where very ancient primates originate from is another question, and isn't all that relevant to the particular issue of human origins. This moronic story has a headline that sounds like somebody is trying to reinvoke the multi-regional hypothesis.

      Shame on Slashdot. Shame on the fucking retard who wrote the article.

      As usual, press articles reflect shallow (or completely missing) understanding of scientific concepts. A better way to describe it would be to say, "Possible Asian Origin for Primates" and go on to describe the Asian animals as "possibly the most recent common ancestors of all primates."

    7. Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this muddled non-sequitur non-explanation is what happens with self-important paleoanthropoligists try to interact with modern hominids.

    8. Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      You're not thinking like an editor. Bullshit headlines generate clicks. Huzzah Slashdot! Huzzah authors!

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    9. Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And which is based on four teeth from an animal the size of a chipmunk. I love it when they say they have discovered a new species of human, with reconstructions etc, when all they have is a jawbone, a piece of skull, or a few teeth. The fossil record of early humans is breathtakingly scanty in my view, and an lot of awfully long bows seem to be drawn from the available evidence.

    10. Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? by samoanbiscuit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You need to read the reply below you to see why I take that tone. Also, I'm not a paleoanthropologist (bioinormatics actually), but I find it hilarious that people who know a lot about a certain domain of knowledge think they don't need to read up on another domain but throw around opinions they think are perfectly valid. Also, what I wrote is a non-sequitur only if you don't know what you are talking about and don't want to read up on the topic, which is common whenever slashdot runs an article not based on CS, Math or Physics.

    11. Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? by meglon · · Score: 1

      This moronic story has a headline that sounds like somebody is trying to reinvoke the multi-regional hypothesis.

      Shame on Slashdot. Shame on the fucking retard who wrote the article.

      You do have to agree though, that the multi-regional hypothesis does solve the one truly glaring issue with the whole "out of Africa meme".... people from New Jersey.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    12. Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wat?

    13. Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people are actually good at their jobs you know.

    14. Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      No, I'd have to agree with the GP, when talking about human ancestors the obvious cuttoff point is when they started becoming human, as opposed to any other species out there. Prior to that it would be hominid ancestors, ape ancestors, primate ancestors, mammalian ancestors etc. At the very least pre-human ancestors. After all we can fairly reliably track our ancestry back to the pre-dinosaur proto-mammals and beyond, calling those human ancestors, while technically true, would be disingenuous and most likely intended to create sensationalist headlines.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    15. Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      It's not just a part of the origin - it may help give further insights about the origin. And for that reason, it's extremely interesting. If anthropoids evolved in (or migrated to) Asia, but humans did not evolve there, what does that mean? That's my point, but if it's not clear, the rest of this will just elaborate.

      It could be that the climate, or geography, or some other factor, was a trigger for adaptation. I'm certainly not a geographer, so take this with a grain of salt. Asia, for me, tends to evoke mountains and hills, while Africa, while home to very large mountains, evokes a vision of plains and trees. What if that allowed for more social interaction during hunting/gathering, requiring communication and fostering intelligence? Or maybe the need for tools favored bigger brains, and the communication and consciousness developed. It is possible that the environment is the key, and without having migrated from Asia we might all be pre-monkeys to this day.

      Whatever the factor, what we have here is a *clue* - one that could lead to better ideas about how we came to be what we are. There will be countless wild-ass guesses that people favor, but one will float to the top eventually.

    16. Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? by b4dc0d3r · · Score: 1

      I really hate to reply to myself, so please no need to moderate this, but I forgot to paste this part of the article (for those unaware, Slashdot stories are largely, but frequently inaccurately, based on something posted on another site, which you can read for more information before commenting off-topic or redundant statements, or already-answered questions).

      This may be because once they got to Africa, they found ideal lush conditions with few carnivores and underwent a "starburst of evolution," says Beard, rapidly giving rise to a number of new species.

      This is one very broad wild-ass guess, which is commonly mentioned in discussions of human evolution, and it has the same sense to me as "...and then magic happens". Discovering this migration of our pre-ancestors should help narrow down which conditions were lush, and possibly which predators were in Asia but were less dangerous than the ones in Africa, that's the import. Beard is talking out his ass, in other words, but it makes sense to me - I just want specifics.

    17. Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      I just love it when some fucktard makes an objection like this without considering a very old and active field called... wait for it... comparative anatomy. You know, that field of research where you can take partial remains, sometimes very minimal remains, and reconstruct the organism from them. Not just paleontologists and taxonomists use it either. It's used in criminal forensics as well. But you're right, some anonymous idiot on /. must know more than the scientists.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  6. halfway to the dinosaurs by cpu6502 · · Score: 0

    37 million years ago is a looooong time ago. More than halfway along the time dimension to the age of the dinosaurs. I'm surprised primates arose that quickly.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    1. Re: halfway to the dinosaurs by cpu6502 · · Score: 1

      Correction: I'm surprised [simians] arose that quickly.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    2. Re: halfway to the dinosaurs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So which came first, the monkey or the throwing of feces?

    3. Re: halfway to the dinosaurs by thoughtsatthemoment · · Score: 1

      I am instead surprised that it took us that many millions of years to start becoming civilized.

    4. Re: halfway to the dinosaurs by Barsteward · · Score: 0

      most of us are getting there, its just the fundamentalist religionists dragging down the stats

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    5. Re: halfway to the dinosaurs by Immerman · · Score: 1

      The feces-throwing came first - after all we all know the primordial slime evolved from politicians.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    6. Re: halfway to the dinosaurs by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Oh I don't know - proto-mammals arose before the dinosaurs, and mammals arose somewhere in late Triassic or early Jurassic, depending on how exactly you define the term (a matter of some debate). Lots of time to accumulate genetic potential before the -saurs were wiped out and the mammalian explosion began. It's not like a primate is any more biologically sophisticated than a horse or squirrel.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  7. island or continent? by hguorbray · · Score: 0

    make up your mind -it can't be both!

    -I'm just sayin'

    1. Re:island or continent? by snookums · · Score: 2

      Australia reporting in here.

      --
      Be careful. People in masks cannot be trusted.
    2. Re:island or continent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eurasia is bigger island than Australia. Besides, we are (and always were) at war with you, Oceania.

  8. Re:Not so sure about that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You sure typed a lot for not having read the summary at all.

  9. Re:Not so sure about that. by swalve · · Score: 2

    It's not a lack, so much, but that white folks have Neanderthal bits in their DNA, where Africans are more purely Homo Sapiens. The AC above made a good point, the human race probably evolved a big brain, got the itch to travel and seeded the world with proto humans, who then stayed relatively stationary, who then evolved into genetically semi-compatible Neanderthal, Denova, African and I think there were others. There were probably plenty of races of these, and it's quite possibly where our mythology of trolls, hobbits and other weird human-likes came from.

  10. Abstract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its mutant fish hands and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this. Retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a monkey-fish-frog. And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey and that made you!

    1. Re:Abstract by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      You'd think that wouldn't be so hard to grasp, conceptually.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
    2. Re:Abstract by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      ... it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this. Retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a monkey-fish-frog. And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that ...

      I think you may have skipped over a rat

      They say the first mammal supposed to be a rat

      They said it, not me.

      I swear, I wasn't there !!
       

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    3. Re:Abstract by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would laugh if ,it was not for the fact that I know people who despite being quite clever in some ways are actually stupid enough to think that this is how evolution works. What makes it more interesting is working out what to do and say when someone defines evolution this way and demands that you prove it while simultaneously denying any corrections to his understanding (aside from back away slowly).

    4. Re:Abstract by jamstar7 · · Score: 2

      They say the first mammal supposed to be a rat

      So it is true that lawyers predate humans. I thought that was just a myth...

      --
      Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
    5. Re:Abstract by dwye · · Score: 1

      Frankly, that sounds less scientific than the Germano-Norse idea than the world was built from Ymir's body, which was licked from the ice by a big cow. A "retard fish crawled out and had butt sex with a squirrel or something" -- ok, from where did the squirrel come, and since when did "butt sex" work for reproduction? Just because the fish step seems the same does not make the AC a master of paleontology or evolutionary history.

    6. Re:Abstract by Samantha+Wright · · Score: 1

      I know, right? You'd think that wouldn't be so hard to grasp, conceptually.

      --
      Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
  11. It's Burma not Myanmar by KiloByte · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Please at least use the correct name for the country. It happened 37Ma ago, the junta went rampant only in 1962. We don't use renamed months when talking about Rome by Commodus or Turkmenistan by Niyazov.

    --
    The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    1. Re:It's Burma not Myanmar by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      Ummm ...

      You mean, some 37 Million Years ago, someone already christened that place with the name of "Burma" ?

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    2. Re:It's Burma not Myanmar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Just up the highway from Shave.

    3. Re:It's Burma not Myanmar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only Burma when the west has a presence inside the country. Their original name is Myanmar, something hard for westerners to pronounce, they thought Burma was easier. When you have the guns, you get to name the country.

    4. Re:It's Burma not Myanmar by outsider007 · · Score: 1

      Is that you Mr Peterman?

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    5. Re:It's Burma not Myanmar by busyqth · · Score: 1

      So, they can call it Myanmar in their language, and we can call it Burma in our langage.
      What's the problem with that?

    6. Re:It's Burma not Myanmar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the Burmese language, Burma is known as either Myanma [mjmà] or Bama [bmà]. Myanma is the written, literary name of the country, while Bama is the spoken name of the country.

      So I guess you're right and wrong.

    7. Re:It's Burma not Myanmar by rossdee · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't for "The West" it would be neither Burma nor Myanmar, it would be part of "The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere
      (and written in Japanese)

      The Burmese people can call their country what they want (actually they can't right now since the military is in charge (what does Aung San Suu Kyi and her followers want to call the place?)

      Different languages have different names for countries - according to the French, the country in which I now reside is called Les Etats Unis, but we don't use that name, or even USA to refer to the area where the ancient Clovis people hunted 12000 years ago because it wasn't called that back then.

      Anyway I just checked by typing Myanmar into Wikipedia and it came up with Burma - case closed)

  12. Monkey Magic viewers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    1. Re:Monkey Magic viewers by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      WTF?! Is that the new rickroll or something?

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:Monkey Magic viewers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF?! Is that the new rickroll or something?

      That I don't know, but it's definitely dumber than this.

    3. Re:Monkey Magic viewers by oldmac31310 · · Score: 1

      Used to watch this as a kid. Loved it. Completely bonkers!

      --
      http://www.acetonestudio.com
  13. Re:Not so sure about that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    probably more like Neanderthals raping our womens

  14. Re:Not so sure about that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    probably more like Neanderthals raping our womens

    so what are you going to do 'bout it?

  15. We Are All...? by tverbeek · · Score: 0

    Wait, so instead of the slogan "We are all Africans", we might have to change it to "We are all Asian-Africans"?

    --
    http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    1. Re:We Are All...? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

      Wait, so instead of the slogan "We are all Africans", we might have to change it to "We are all Asian-Africans"?

      Inb4 someone came in and add " ... no wonder we are all so fuck-up !!! "

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
  16. Re:Not so sure about that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    probably more like Neanderthals raping our womens

    Or their dirty women jumpin' our Neanderthals.

  17. Re:Not so sure about that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    probably more like Neanderthals raping our womens

    If I was a Neanderthal, I'd be hot for fat blonde chicks.

  18. An Argument for creationists. by axlr8or · · Score: 1

    Now you have DONE IT!!! They will use this against us for another 40 years. Hehehe.. On the bright side, it will be ever so much fun to twist this thorn into the 'Evolutionist' side. Because you know, they just can't seem to say these little words; "I don't know for sure." Hehehe. I for one, abhore monkeys and so I believe that somewhere along the 'lemur' phase the branch containing feline DNA began developing. I hold cats and dogs in much much higher regard than our psychotic, self serving narcissistic great ape brethren. I believe my family tree originated on that side but branched off around the 'still able to lick your own balls' forking. Come to think of it, I just don't see humans coming from apes. Most people I know are much more like rhesus monkeys or macaques.

    1. Re:An Argument for creationists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

  19. I was once a single cell organism .. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was once a single cell organism about 9 months before I was born.

  20. Waste mod points here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To paraphrase M.O.P

    Ghetto AZN, Street AZN, House AZN, We're all AZN's

    Pardon me while I get in touch with my inner scholarship snatcher...

    Why my face frush when drink EtOH?

  21. This would mean by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Buckminster Fuller was right all along

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  22. What made us 'human' by relikx · · Score: 1

    It's something that could arguably be found best in the congruence of factors giving to the rise of our elevated brain activity in a more complete fashion. In that sense, interesting to wonder when it 'came together' as complex activity (tools, large worship sites, etc.) seems to get further pushed back archaeologically more and more.

  23. Re:not true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why does god hate fags if he made us all in his image?

  24. An Asian Origin For Human Ancestors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not Zoidberg?

  25. Sory! I panicked! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    37 Million Years ago, someone already christened that place with the name of "Burma" ?

    OL1: Anthropoids don't come from Myanmar - they come from ...

    OL2: Burma!

    OL1: Burma?!!? Why'd you say 'Burma' ????

    OL2: Sory! I panicked!

  26. The Words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ghengis Khan.

  27. Re:Not so sure about that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In the case of Neanderthals, it is very possible that there was enough genetic similarity that cross breeding could happen even though technically they were different species.

    Other examples of this can be found with other mammals such as Horses and Donkeys reproducing to produce Mules as well as Tigers and Lions producing Ligons and Tiglons. While such unions typically produce infertile offspring when they are of the same genus but different species (like Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis), such infertility doesn't always hold true. It really is a case of incomplete speciation.

    I highly doubt that genetic evolution, even convergent evolution, would allow dissimilar species to ever mate... such as Klingons and Humans or Romulans and Ferrengi. Star Trek script writers did a whole bunch of handwaving and even made up a bunch of BS to try and explain how that worked.

    That other species in the Homo genus were around from time to time may be true, and it would be interesting to see just how far speciation actually happened with them as well. I'm just suggesting that there are existing mechanisms that would explain how Neanderthal DNA could end up with some people in Europe, and it wouldn't even need to be that many Neanderthals which would form the core genetic pool for that DNA.

  28. Parallel evolution, again? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

    Weren't there theories in the early 20th century that humans had evolved from different primates in different places roughly simultaneously (at that time, used as a justification for a sort of patronizing racism - that of course the nonwhite peoples were 'not as evolved' as whites)?

    Trying not to resurrect that theory's rationale, but would the article's line of reasoning perhaps suggest that humans MAY in fact have evolved in at least 2 places?

    Racism's bad enough today. What would be the result if we figured out that we're actually the result of two SEPARATE human lines who somehow ended up interbreeding?

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Parallel evolution, again? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      I don't think the article is saying that humans emerged in Asia and Africa and then intermingled. It's that some primates emerged in Asia. A group of these primates migrated to Africa where some of their descendants evolved into humans who spread across the globe. So while our ancestors came from Africa, they came from Asia before that. (Not really surprising, given the millions of years time-span, that multiple migrations like this would have occurred.)

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Parallel evolution, again? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it's just me, but I seem to keep hearing absolute conclusions in ancient anthropology from what amounts to 2 points of facts, and 98 points of sheer speculation.

      For example, the 'neanderthals did/didn't interbreed with humans' discussion. Some say absolutely not, never, no way. Some say absolutely yes, all the time.

      Now this. Considering the snapshots we have of ancient human activity are such a tiny slice of huge spans of time, is it impossible/inconceivable that parallel evolution DID occur and that as varied populations on a more-or-less comparable developmental level encountered each other, they interbred? Would we even be able to tell today?

      The basic fact being that human (males, primarily) will mate with pretty much anything else. The internet should be enough proof of THAT.

      --
      -Styopa
  29. I KNEW IT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I knew that's where we originated!! I KNEW there had to be a reason for why we all eat rice and drive slow!

  30. Galactic Federation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someday, humans on Earth will know that they are not alone in the universe.

    With that new information, humans will not come from ape from Africa or Asian. It will be a Truth that Earth had been many times colonize upon the millions of years that Earth exist.

    Science is not Truth, Humans come from the universe.

    Isn't that Obvious? ;-P

  31. Aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aliens needed workforces all around the world, made alien-chimp hybrids all over the world and so we get different kinds of humans originating from various areas of the planet.

    It's both simple and mind-boggling!

  32. Re:Not so sure about that. by mcgrew · · Score: 1

    Star Trek script writers did a whole bunch of handwaving and even made up a bunch of BS to try and explain how that worked.

    That was one thing that always annoyed me about Star Trek. It's bad enough that anyone would think that an alien species would look anything like us (which was the point of a short SF story I wrote) but to think species from completely different solar sytems could mate is beyond ludicrous.

  33. Found buried in the swams of Burma by Badger+Nadgers · · Score: 1

    I always suspected we were descended from Spitfires.

  34. Re:Not so sure about that. by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Actually, wasn't it a TNG episode that involved tracking down some ancient message encoded in the combined DNA of various worlds that turned out to be a "We were here" from an earlier race that found itself alone in the galaxy and seeded various worlds with their DNA so that the later races would have someone to talk to? Maybe you include that in the BS category, but really something like that is probably the only realistic way you'd get a galaxy full of hominids (or DNA-based life for that matter), and it would at least open the door to the possibility of interspecies children. Especially if the ancients considered that a design feature.

    I'm trying to remember if there were any cases of interspecies children prior to that episode, I can't think of any off-hand, other than Spock of course. But then I can't think of much in the way of explanations being offered for them at all - please point out a few, I'm curious now.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  35. Re:Whites evolved from blacks... by Immerman · · Score: 1

    Oh yes, an artist's rendering of an early human looks more like the modern-day people in the region than the modern-day people of other regions. What a compelling argument.

    Even if accurate the similarities would mean nothing more than that white people had to adapt to a significantly different environment when they left the tropics, it's not like any species is "more evolved" than another - we've all been evolving since life first arose, the parent stock doesn't stop evolving just because part of the population branches off in a different direction.

    Yeah, yeah, I shouldn't feed the trolls, sometimes one does manage to get under my skin though. If you're going to be a racist at least don't be an idiot about it. Or maybe we're finally reaching a point where only the idiots feel that racism has legitimate roots. There's a cheerful thought, I feel better now.

    --
    --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  36. so how about two different places of origin by KingBenny · · Score: 1

    because the circumstances allowed similar evolution? climate, supernovaparticles? big monoliths, who knows how it works yet? no one
    i find similarities in the sound of language where i'm from and japanese but none in any of the african sounds, its far fetched ofcourse, and it might indeed lead to master race theories but still, why couldnt it have been like that? All these duds with their huge theories dont have actual proof, just a little evidence and a lot of deduction

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?