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.'"
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*
For someone to publicly challenge their own theories takes considerable stature.
Pro tip:
Phrases like "the earth is trying defend itself" and "starving the earth of resources" put you in the crazies column.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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
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.
Everyone knows climate change has been going on since the big bang. Doesn't mean that it isn't influenced by humans and it certainly doesn't dispute the fact that it is of concern to modern society. If anything the fact that we have been victims of climate change for millenia reinforces the idea that we should do all we can to research its causes and possible ways to mitigate or adapt to it.
Here is a good example. Lions and tigers are considered separate species, yet they can interbreed and produce ligers and tigons. And, this morning I saw a newscast saying a liger had bred with a lion producing an offspring, so apparently ligers are fertile. This should suggest that lions and tigers are not a separate species (My head hurts now).
They believe all of humanity came from Adam and Eve, a couple of thousand years ago.
And that the Garden of Eden is somewhere north of Amarillo.
Right, that's Miss Eden's cathouse just off the interstate about 5 miles north of Armadillo.
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.
In ancient times, the Conquering King said to the Conquered King "Look, my troops are burning your city to the ground!" The Conquered King retorted "Look, your troops are burning YOUR city to the ground!"
I think the original had Croesus (Mr "As rich as ...") playing Conquered, but the story is probably older than that.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"