History Community ~ All Empires Homepage


This is the Archive on WORLD Historia, the old original forum.

 You cannot post here - you can only read.

 

Here is the link to the new forum:

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Forum Lockedhuman origin debate (out-of-africa?)

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
Author
Beylerbeyi View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Status: Offline
Points: 1359
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Beylerbeyi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2009 at 12:03
So what you are not a nazi now? Good for you.

Quote Do you, like, have a life, I wonder, other than fighting imaginary enemies on-line? Wow, you're something.
 
I happen to be someone who publishes peer-reviewed studies with stats in them. That makes me especially sensitive to scientific nonsense.

edited for content


Edited by es_bih - 03-Feb-2009 at 14:57
Always try to be as radical as reality itself. - Lenin
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 125
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2009 at 15:34
I'm going to have to disagree with the Europeans being derived from Homo N. and Homo P how do you explain the white,asian and blacks being able to intermate today when we know down the line species are not able to interbreed as far down generations within 100,000 years. And how do you explain the traces of your culture,can state any traces of Homo Neandertal technology that is found in Europe today or better yet in the world.
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 125
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2009 at 15:38
Originally posted by beorna beorna wrote:

Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

  I also had a look at some of its links, such as www.racialreality.com
nothing with terms like racial is serious. There are no human races.

Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

 The truth is, I really don't know whether to take them seriously or not.
I wouldn't call the multi-regional or the out-of-asia theory unserious. They are probably wrong, but not in any case not serious.

Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

 So far, most genetists and anthropological experts have settled with the "out-of-africa" theory on the origins of Homo-Sapiens based on the testing of the mutation mark on DNA chromozones; explaining that all human beings alive descend today from a Mitocondrial Eve that lived in Eastern Africa some 150,000 years ago.
This made the multi-regionalist a bit quiet, but one single exploration can change the whole picture we have about human evolution.

Many of the so-called "scientists" on these anthropological forums seem to challenge this view, claiming that there is ample of evidence to explain separate biological origins for the different races of man, and that distinct human races are equivalent to sub-species, only that they are not allowed to be published by the Politically-Correct pressure of today's world.
The problem is, are Homo erectus and Homo sapiens or Homo heidelbergensis or Homo neanderthalensis different species or not. Nobody can really say this. They are what we had to call Palaeo-species. So it is possible that Homo was just one specie since perhaps two million years. The problem with the multi.regional theory is that e.g. in Europe the difference between the habitus of Homso s. and Homo n. is to great for saying they developed from each other. and we found Homo s. and Homo n. in Palestine in different layers and Homo n. wasn't the elder one. Of course multi-regional-theory could be right nevertheless. So just in Europe the modern Homo sapiens arrived and wiped the Homo n. out. In all other regions the populations developed without a break. But we have to doubt here too. I don't want to accuse every multi-regionalist, but this seems to be a racist view. The modern "race" developed in the Near East and Europe. All other "races" , of course "inferior races" developed from less modern forms.

Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

 Personally speaking, I try to be objective and form my opinion with what scientific evidence comes up, and so far I trust the "out-of-africa" model more than the "multi-regional" model based on the fact that scientists from several prestigious universities all over the world have agreed with the same thing. (doubt that all of them are part of the same PC conspiracy).
The family tree of the hominids has more whit and unknown branches than it has branches with known palaeo-species. Gibbons and Orangs appear in Asia, so why Asia isn't an important area for human evolution. It was once thought that Homo erectus was the first who left Africa. This is no longer sure. Perhaps we just explored no early Hominid outside Africa till now but they came from Asia or from Miocene Europe, who knows? I hope one day the nationalism while be wiped out in science. So that e.g. Chinese can be proud of Homo pekinensis allthough he's not the Chinese ancestor.

Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

 What I'd like to know is, when these "multi-regional" proponents come up with their evidence to refute the "out-of-africa" theory, how do the proponents of the "out-of-africa" theory defend their model?
So far I've only come across sites that are in favour of the "out-of-africa" theory and sites that are in favour of the "multi-regional theory", but I have never seen a debate between the 2.
  The out-of-africa-theory is not the older theory. There are discussion between both theories but often very personal.
[/QUOTE]
I'm going to have to disagree with the Europeans being derived from Homo N. and Homo P how do you explain the white,asian and blacks being able to intermate today when we know down the line species are not able to interbreed as far down generations within 100,000 years. And how do you explain the traces of your culture,can state any traces of Homo Neandertal technology that is found in Europe today or better yet in the world.
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2009 at 21:01
There's one other question that I find intriguing: to what extent does X and Y chromozones represent the real biological descent of an individual?
 
Take the imaginary example of a European traveller who settles in West Africa in the 19th century. He takes a local woman for a wife and has children with her. His son, in turn, mates with another local woman and has children... 5 generations down the line, the Y chrmozone of the orginal European would be passed down the male line totally intact. That's to say, the great-great grandson of the original settler has a Y chromozone that is 100% European. Yet in reality he is only 1/32 European.
 
How could the testing of X and Y chromozones take this case into consideration on tracing one's ancestry?
 
 
Back to Top
es_bih View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Beglerbeg

Joined: 20-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3426
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote es_bih Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02-Feb-2009 at 23:46
Originally posted by es_bih es_bih wrote:

I am just asking both of you to keep the discussion in a gentlemanly manner. Thanks. No reason for personal insults from either side. 


Bey, I am sure you have read this so please stop the personal attacks, just like Konstantinius. Thus I hid your post since it lacked in anything of substance to this ongoing discussion. I am sure you can come up with a much better and academic rebuttal than that. Thanks gentlemen.

Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 125
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Feb-2009 at 09:13
Originally posted by calvo calvo wrote:

There's one other question that I find intriguing: to what extent does X and Y chromozones represent the real biological descent of an individual?
 
Take the imaginary example of a European traveller who settles in West Africa in the 19th century. He takes a local woman for a wife and has children with her. His son, in turn, mates with another local woman and has children... 5 generations down the line, the Y chrmozone of the orginal European would be passed down the male line totally intact. That's to say, the great-great grandson of the original settler has a Y chromozone that is 100% European. Yet in reality he is only 1/32 European.
 
How could the testing of X and Y chromozones take this case into consideration on tracing one's ancestry?
 
 


Well my friend you just said it the Y chromosome marker will show up in his genomic make up. So the question is not debating whether he is full breed European but the fact is that he does have European ancestry despite any other lineages whether paternal or maternal. That is the key with  Y-MCRA it is to find out your genetic history what ancestor down the line caused you to have a unique chracteristic. It is known that genetic markers are due   being caused by disease,mutations,natural selection,foreign body agents etc thus giving reason to genetic mutations. But what is certain is that the Khalarian and Bambuti people carry the genes in which all modern humans show a basic compositinal variance related as to their make up.

And what that means is that their genes can be bioengineered and  can make more different versions of humans than your genes can make more different versions of man.So that will probbably be 100x sagan numbers deposed to your 80 times sagan numbers.

As others have said there may have been  humans to migrate out of Africa before the Mitchondrial Eve and Y-Adam descendants did  but they did not survive. Hey, here's a theory maybe they MCRA descendants learned different crafts from the unrelated humanoid family's who aleady inherited unknown lands. Then the MCRA descndants commandeered the ancient civilizations we know today while the unrelated became extinct such as Ancient Sanskrit Brahman  of India .
Back to Top
Leonidas View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 01-Oct-2005
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4617
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Leonidas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Feb-2009 at 13:06
got a point Bey, all posts are hidden. If es bih wants to let you guys edit out the filler and just leave the thriller that would be fine. Until then it would be best for the thread to hide the most recent posts (no one in particular targeted) and start talking human origins.

Everyone is smart and no one is a Nazi, please guys let it go.


Edited by Leonidas - 03-Feb-2009 at 13:10
Back to Top
es_bih View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar
Beglerbeg

Joined: 20-Dec-2006
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3426
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote es_bih Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 03-Feb-2009 at 15:01
I have edited out the offenses and unhidden your post Bey. Like I said nothing against either of you two, just no reason to talk about each other when there is a good thread that needs more academic input.  The ones from both of you that serve no purpose will remain hidden. Please drop the animosity between each other for the sake of the thread. Leonidas pointed out to both that this is against neither but to keep the topic flowing professionally. If you have any other issues feel free to PM me.

Back to Top
Bernard Woolley View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian


Joined: 11-Jun-2008
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 154
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bernard Woolley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 02:13

Originally posted by konstantinius konstantinius wrote:

However, Asians today retain primitive characteristics such as shovel-shaped incisors and occipital bun (both H. erectus traits). If indeed complete replacement is true, then these mutations have repeated twice in EXACT fashion which is an evolutionary impossibility (or at least not seen anywhere else yet). Also, Java man is of high antiquity which presupposes that if modern H. sapiens completely replaced them, they must have arrived there immediately upon exit from Africa.

The occipital bun is not a peculiar trait of Homo Erectus. It was characteristic of numerous pre-Homo Sapiens hominid species, including Neanderthals. Modern humans don't have the bun, period. The occasional human may happen to have a small protrusion (nothing approaching the size of a true Neanderthal occipital bun), but this trait appears in populations all over the world and is not a peculiar characteristic of Asians.

I'm not sure what your point is about Java Man. You'll have to explain what his antiquity has to do with when modern humans appeared in East Asia.

 

Originally posted by konstantinius konstantinius wrote:

In my opinion that is a mistake. It is very possible that in Asia modern humans out of Africa mated with local H. erectus/Archaic homo to produce the modern inhabitants.

It's possible, there just isn't much evidence to suggest it. Personally I don't think it makes much sense. One would imagine, if modern Asians were the product of a hybridization with Homo Erectus, with its robust facial features, that modern Asians would have some of those robust features. They don't, and neither do modern Europeans resemble Neanderthals in any way.

Back to Top
Boreasi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 15-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 300
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Boreasi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 04:55
50.000+ years old Australians:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/38656/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

50.000 years old Americans
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf087/sf087a01.htm
http://www.athenapub.com/10pfurad.htm

40.000+ years old Articals
http://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/~gowlett/Gowlett-in_the_cold-n2001.pdf

How did the alledged tribe from Africa reach to populate all these sites - MORE than 40.000 years ago...?!
Be good or be gone.
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 08:40
Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:

50.000+ years old Australians:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/38656/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

50.000 years old Americans
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf087/sf087a01.htm
http://www.athenapub.com/10pfurad.htm

40.000+ years old Articals
http://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/~gowlett/Gowlett-in_the_cold-n2001.pdf

How did the alledged tribe from Africa reach to populate all these sites - MORE than 40.000 years ago...?!
 
First of all, these findings have not made sure as to whether these humans were archaic hominids or modern human beings.
Secondly, the out-of-Africa date varies from 85,000 years ago to 50,000 years ago; so if modern human beings had reached these extreme regions by 50,000 years ago it would not be all surprising. Some scientists suggest various migrations out of Africa starting from 100,000 years ago; yet most of the descendants of these early migrants did not survive the various ice ages and population bottlenecks.
 
Nevertheless, I would still like to see more back-up evidence from mainstream academic sources regarding these findings.
 
Back to Top
AksumVanguard View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 01-Feb-2009
Status: Offline
Points: 125
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote AksumVanguard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04-Feb-2009 at 09:34
Originally posted by Boreasi Boreasi wrote:

50.000+ years old Australians:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/38656/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

50.000 years old Americans
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf087/sf087a01.htm
http://www.athenapub.com/10pfurad.htm

40.000+ years old Articals
http://pcwww.liv.ac.uk/~gowlett/Gowlett-in_the_cold-n2001.pdf

How did the alledged tribe from Africa reach to populate all these sites - MORE than 40.000 years ago...?!


They key in this thesis, is "common ancestor",it doesn't mean that the Y-Chromosal Adam and The Mitochondrial Eve descendants didn't leave to the old americas,australia,articals 50,000-40,000 years ago it states that their descendants are the only survivors. They probably were inhabitants on these lands rather than the Y-adams children but they did not survive. They probably picked up the crafts of the indegenous populations and learnered about the land or the Y-adam and M.Eve descnedants probably lived in prehistoric clans. The aboriginals might of held on some thousand years after but they eventually died out. Some say from a volcanic explosion or the Glacieral Ice Age who knows.
Back to Top
Bulldog View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 17-May-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2775
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bulldog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2009 at 18:22
Quote Gcle
I meant one common human ancestor. For instance, as a minimum,  the Eve everyone talks about could have been an identical twin.
More likely though is that there was a common human litter (i.e. group of siblings). More likely than that that there beings qualified as 'human' emerged in several families.


I don't want to be annoying but I just have to ask these questions.
If there was an Eve or identical twin Eve, who was her mother? there is a starting point for everything unless its always existed.

 
 
Quote Gcle
One difficulty here is that there would have been no discrete divide between 'human' and 'non-human' so one population gradually emerged from another population over many generations.


Is there evidence to suggest this?
The human brain hasn't changed, our application of it has, therefore in terms of basic human intellegence we are the same as the first human.
And there must have been a beginning of whatever the early population was.


Quote Gcle
 After all no-one claims there was a common ancestor of all Anglo-Saxons, or all Han Chinese, so why a common ancestor of humans?


I don't know about Chiinese but a large population of the world population believe all humans have a common ancestor.
 

      “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.”
Albert Pine

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 7011
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 05-Feb-2009 at 21:34
Originally posted by Bulldog Bulldog wrote:

Quote Gcle
I meant one common human ancestor. For instance, as a minimum,  the Eve everyone talks about could have been an identical twin.
More likely though is that there was a common human litter (i.e. group of siblings). More likely than that that there beings qualified as 'human' emerged in several families.


I don't want to be annoying but I just have to ask these questions.
If there was an Eve or identical twin Eve, who was her mother? there is a starting point for everything unless its always existed.
Good question. See below.
Quote
 
Quote Gcle
One difficulty here is that there would have been no discrete divide between 'human' and 'non-human' so one population gradually emerged from another population over many generations.


Is there evidence to suggest this?
The evolution ofpretty well everything. It proceeds in tiny steps.
 
Think of a black box a few tens or hundreds of thousands years long. In one end goes a population that is definitely not human. Out the other end comes a population that is definitely human. In the middle you can't tell whether some individual is human or not, because there's no sharp dividing line. The qualities that define a human emerge tiny bits at a time over many generations.
 
(In the above it doesn't matter whether you take 'human' to mean the genus homo or the species homo sapiens sapiens, except the boy may be longer or shorter. In fact you could substitute 'horse' or 'elephant' or 'ant' or 'cockroach' and it wouldn't make any difference. The only thing that differs if when the development is the result of direct human intervention in the process, as in the development of the thoroughbred racehorse.)
Quote  
The human brain hasn't changed
Yes it has, like everything else about humans. Not by much, possibly, but changed certainly.
Quote
, our application of it has, therefore in terms of basic human intellegence we are the same as the first human.
There wasn't one, even if there is a common ancestor.
Quote
And there must have been a beginning of whatever the early population was.
Nope. See above. Gradual change over many many generations.
Quote
Quote Gcle
 After all no-one claims there was a common ancestor of all Anglo-Saxons, or all Han Chinese, so why a common ancestor of humans?


I don't know about Chiinese but a large population of the world population believe all humans have a common ancestor.
So?
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork
Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.
Back to Top
Boreasi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 15-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 300
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Boreasi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Feb-2009 at 06:40

Quote
Quote And there must have been a beginning of whatever the early population was.

Nope. See above. Gradual change over many many generations.


In explaining the origin of new species the frame "Gradual change" is just another simplistic speculation, without any scientific foundantion.
Be good or be gone.
Back to Top
edgewaters View Drop Down
Immortal Guard
Immortal Guard
Avatar

Joined: 13-Mar-2006
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 2396
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote edgewaters Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Feb-2009 at 07:02

Gradualism (phyletic or punctuated) is an evolutionary theory with considerable evidence.

It has competitors who are also backed up by considerable evidence, such as punctuated equilibrium. But it is nonsense to say it hasn't got "any scientific foundation".



Edited by edgewaters - 06-Feb-2009 at 07:04
Back to Top
Boreasi View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 15-Sep-2006
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 300
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Boreasi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Feb-2009 at 09:13
Originally posted by edgewaters edgewaters wrote:

Gradualism (phyletic or punctuated) is an evolutionary theory with considerable evidence.

It has competitors who are also backed up by considerable evidence, such as punctuated equilibrium. But it is nonsense to say it hasn't got "any scientific foundation".



If we differ between "supposed" and "proved" we may look at these theories as suggestions. More or less qualified and/or advanced they are still pre-sumtions.

In spite of more than a centurys research of this question we still cant make "gradualism" a valid basis for profound claims about how primates have produced new species. Conrary to popular belief there is still no evidence that such a metamorphosis can or have happend. Thus I intended to point out that this (old) hypothesis (still) doesn't have a true scientific foundation - and doesnt seem to get one.

At this time the other theory you mentioned - "punctuated equilibrum" - seem to carry a better promise for a scientific explanation. All it requires is that we find the missing link...!


Edited by Boreasi - 06-Feb-2009 at 09:14
Be good or be gone.
Back to Top
Beylerbeyi View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Status: Offline
Points: 1359
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Beylerbeyi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06-Feb-2009 at 09:43
Quote Thus I intended to point out that this (old) hypothesis (still) doesn't have a true scientific foundation - and doesnt seem to get one.
Like edgewaters wrote this is nonsense. Definition of species is arbitrary, and gradual buildup of mutations do result in new species eventually. This theory is scientific as any other.  
Always try to be as radical as reality itself. - Lenin
Back to Top
pebbles View Drop Down
Baron
Baron


Joined: 12-Oct-2008
Status: Offline
Points: 407
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pebbles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2009 at 16:14
 
IMHO ... I think " out-of-Africa " theory is misleading  Tongue
Back to Top
calvo View Drop Down
General
General


Joined: 20-May-2007
Location: Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote calvo Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Feb-2009 at 20:33
Originally posted by pebbles pebbles wrote:

 
IMHO ... I think " out-of-Africa " theory is misleading  Tongue
 
Why is it misleading?
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 2345>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.