Slashdot Mirror
"Out of Africa" Theory Called Into Question By Originator
Amiga Trombone writes "Christopher Stringer is one of the world's foremost paleoanthropologists. He is a founder and most powerful advocate of the leading theory concerning our evolution: Recent African Origin or 'Out of Africa.' He now calls the theory into question: 'I'm thinking a lot about species concepts as applied to humans, about the "Out of Africa" model, and also looking back into Africa itself. I think the idea that modern humans originated in Africa is still a sound concept. Behaviorally and physically, we began our story there, but I've come around to thinking that it wasn't a simple origin. Twenty years ago, I would have argued that our species evolved in one place, maybe in East Africa or South Africa. There was a period of time in just one place where a small population of humans became modern, physically and behaviourally. Isolated and perhaps stressed by climate change, this drove a rapid and punctuational origin for our species. Now I don't think it was that simple, either within or outside of Africa.'"
Pro tip:
Phrases like "the earth is trying defend itself" and "starving the earth of resources" put you in the crazies column.
But you'd still be qualified to be Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
The problem with pinpointing human origins is we keep digging where 1) human remains are close to the surface, making them easy to dig up, with yearly rains washing away more and more making it even easier,
See the cave sites in France. Actually, see cave sites across the world, where excavation involves chipping rock away to find the remains. It's nearer to sculpting and excavation. That's hardly easy, nowhere near the surface, and is standard practice in paleo excavations.
2) the conditions for fossilization are highly salient. We very well could have come from environs where fossilization processes are nearly impossible, leaving no trace of our ancestors.
The burden of proof is on you for this point. You need to give the reasons why you think humans were present in a specific area, and yet their remains (bone, stone, etc) are not present. You may be right now and then, but you can't simply make a broad blanket statement like this. There are hundreds of markers for a human presence that can be examined beyond fossilized remains.
We also like to dig where early humans leave behind stone tools. We don't dig where humans uses wood tools, because they fossilize way less often. It's hard to study what's not left behind! However, it's probable more humans used wood tools earlier and longer.
Humans didn't need stone tools in any areas that had ample bamboo present. It's easier to make and acquire, and just as sharp. However, there is intense work across SE Asia and Indonesia where human remains were found with and without stone tools, probably because bamboo was being used. So again, you're wrong on this point. This is where science takes over. It looks at broad, perhaps logically seeming statements and questions them. Answers come by interpreting evidence. Paleoanthropologists are doing an excellent job, and critiquing them with your own common sense will not lead to you to good answers.