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.'"
Slashdot sucks!
I don't care what they say. It was a good movie.
Where do Texans fit in all this?
Everyone knows climate change didn't begin until the Industrial Revolution.
From TFA:
But we're having to re-evaluate [the Out-of-Africa model] now because genetic data suggest that the modern humans who came out of Africa about 60,000 years ago probably interbred with Neanderthals, first of all, and then some of them later on interbred with another group of people called the Denisovans, over in south eastern Asia.
Nice to see some theory re-evaluation in practice. It is the only way to reach the truth.
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, and 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.
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.
"Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins
Reality is more complex than humans just appearing in one location in Africa? That doesn't really question ANYTHING about the theory, but instead just suggests a refinement. This is essentially a non-story that only acts as fuel for dumb creationists who don't read more than a headline.
Like every other part of science and history, no matter how simple the subject appears at first the more you dig into it the more complex it gets?
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
on humans and it showed them coming in on space ships.
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
The news story is dated 11/12/11. It's nearly a year old.
For someone to publicly challenge their own theories takes considerable stature.
Because they bring out the GNAA and similar trolls. There is nothing nerd-worthy about this. Slashdot is complete shit now, and should be removed from the internet.
This is one of the reasons I hated Biology as a subject. The best definition I ever got for 'species' was a set of organisms that could interbreed and produce fertile offspring. This guy reminds us "remember, that's not always the case". So, if that's not the definition of species, what is? Poke and prod any Zoology professor long enough and he'll finally say "that's just the way it is, so just memorize it". There's no logical process defined for assigning organisms a place in our taxonomy. The only answer is "They guy credited with finding these arbitrarily decided that it belonged in this phylum, genus, etc" (I forgot the orders because, like I said, it's all arbitrary anyway). There is no sure-fire way to decide whether 2 organisms belong to the same species (much less any more generic taxon) because the reproduce with fertile offspring test is not necessarily the answer. It then comes down to "Well, they look different and they act different enough that I now officially say so". Bah. Is anything that arbitrary truly a science?
A species is rarely singular, like a line or even like a river. It's more as if there was a continuum, like a flooded plain, and what we see is mainly determined by our own narrow views of organisms (or their remains) in spatial, temporal or cognitive terms. Simple things like the fact that wolves and coyotes are so close genetically that they should be called one species. Or many large cats. Or earlier subspecies of humans.
Paleontologists only see the world as if it was lit up by small flashbulbs every now and then. Yes we've seen a lot of snapshots but how much is that compared to billions of years of evolution all over the Earth?
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Why has the out of africa THEORY been presented as fact despite the growing evidence against it? Why have all other theories been so violently opposed?
Simple reason:
Its all about denying that we are different species. It is about denying that there is any significant evolution that has happened to us after we went our separate ways. It is about denying that force integrating us back together would lose any such differences. It is about denying the fact that we should not race mix. It is about justifying the genocide of the European species.
Basically, they want to selectively breed humanity, which they consider peons, into the dumbest and least capable species possible. They want to do this so that the we are not genetically capable of comprehending or resisting our enslavement they have us bound under. The easiest and fastest way to do this is to throw away humans and start with africans, who are already essentially as dumb and incapable of organizing as they want in their slave species.
This purposeful down breeding of humanity is protected from exposure when the lie of out of africa is taught, thus they fight diligently to keep up the illusion of us all being the same.
Why has the out of africa THEORY been presented as fact despite the growing evidence against it? Why have all other theories been so violently opposed?
Simple reason!
Its all about denying that we are different species. It is about denying that there is any significant evolution that has happened to us after we went our separate ways. It is about denying that force integrating us back together would lose any such differences. It is about denying the fact that we should not race mix. It is about justifying the genocide of the European species.
Basically, they want to selectively breed humanity, which they consider peons, into the dumbest and least capable species possible. They want to do this so that the we are not genetically capable of comprehending or resisting our enslavement they have us bound under. The easiest and fastest way to do this is to throw away humans and start with africans, who are already essentially as dumb and incapable of organizing as they want in their slave species.
This purposeful down breeding of humanity is protected from exposure when the lie of out of africa is taught, thus they fight diligently to keep up the illusion of us all being the same.
Humans love to categorize. Square and round things go together. Things with four legs vs things with six legs go together. Same basic principle.
Of course, in practice, there is a continuum, stretching from specimen to specimen, and also back in time. But sometimes it's convenient to draw lines to limit your area of study.
The dates don't match my own research into plate tectonics and ocean levels at around 130,000 years ago the only time a few peruvian ruins that have docks for boats that are now 12 miles inland and 2 miles up the mountain side could have had water .....
IF the out of africa theory is correct then its impossible that these ruins exist and someone for a reason has been lying.
LYING i tell ya....there is more evidence a whole city form 12000 - 11000 years back in peru that had no forts , no army , no weapons and traded as far away as brazil , japan etc. FROM the objects found that was derived that civilization was founded on trade not war.
are you a troll?
thats why he got put on a stake.....
As a biologist, I'd say you've hit the nail on the head. There's probably no such thing as a species as a discrete entity, and the reason we have about 57 different species concepts is that they're all differing models for categorically explaining a continuous phenomenon that otherwise defies enumeration. But like other models, they're fantastically useful in some respects, and we keep them around for those purposes. When species concepts start to break down, we start talking about things like gene trees, or population dynamics, depending on the level of precision required. Even those things are models, but models that are useful for the level of question we're asking.
At its root, the only things that really 'exist' are probably genes, which struggle for existence in communities of other genes, trying to replicate themselves as much as possible because the ones who don't aren't around anymore. But working purely with genes, and nothing else, needlessly complicates a great many things.
I thought about it a little more. The traditional species concept is probably a holdover from a pre-scientific era, basically a biblical concept.
If God did it, it's a species. If man did it or if it was observable how it came to be then it's not a species. Hence wolf and coyote are different species, while dobermann and chihuahua aren't.
thegodmovie.com - watch it
All I really have to say.
(Not intended to be sarcastic. This kind of thing is always cool.)
Being actually somewhat familiar with both the old "Out of Africa" theory, as well the new evidence for breeding with Neandertals and Denisovans (and having read this particular article), I have to say: this is blowing things out of proportion. Evidence suggests that today's modern humans did in fact evolve from a relatively small group of people (I've seen estimates in the 5-20,000 range) that, you know, came out of Africa about 200,000 years ago. That these people, on their migration, interbred in some places with Neandertals and in others with Denisovans, and presumably in some places with both, shouldn't be surprising. (Sleeping with the locals seems to be a long tradition in human exploration.) But the maximal genetic contribution from either species is only something like 1-4% depending on which human population you're talking about. That's not enough to really support the sort of long-term regional continuity (aka "multiregional evolution" or "polycentrism") that is (was) the competing theory. Instead it just makes us "Out of Africa" humans who happened to breed with something else along the way.
look at the data you have and formulate a theory. Collect more data. Modify your theory. SCIENCE!!
I've been reading recently about psychopaths and I've been struck by the primitiveness of their mental makeup, their personalities. It is almost as if they are more animal than modern human, having less of the intense social motivations that define the modern human and more of the egocentric animal motivations that must have been part of the personalities of our evolutionary precursors. It seems to me that the 1% of the population that is psychopathic is a throwback or a living fossil. It seems as if a human personality from hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of years ago is attached to a modern level of intelligence. I'm wondering if the DNA contribution mentioned in the article in EDGE linked to in this slashdot article may not be somehow responsible for part of the spectrum of human personality and behavior. Recent brain scans (I've read) seem to indicate a weaker connection between the frontal lobes of the human brain and the limbic system responsible for human emotion and even fear. It may be responsible for the lack of empathy and conscience in the psychopath. Is this damage, or is it merely the physical manifestation of an earlier brain contained in our genetic structure? When three out of four children in a family are normal and one is a psychopath are we seeing a genetic combination that creates in part a slightly more primitive brain? Read Dr. Robert Hare Phd. on psychopathy ( "Without Conscience," "Snakes in Suits") for insight into this fascinating "personality disorder." He does not make the point and is not responsible in any way for the point I am making above connecting psychopathy and the genetic contributions of primitive anscestors. Further, I am not an expert in either genetics or psychology.
E Proelio Veritas.
Obviously, they have never heard that "Out of Africa" was coined by Scipio Africanus. Fortunately for the author his estate cannot collect damages. (Or was it a Trademark?)
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
...I also have a theory of evolution and this Africa affair seems just too sloppy and biased toward, ah! Americanity? It seems my model is much deepe,r but it is still incompletely expressed and only partially published online.