Out of Africa myth debunked

[TylerDurden]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0703_020704_georgianskull.html

[Dr. D]

At the risk of stating the obvious, simply because scientists and archaeologists have a tendency to change their initial thoughts after a second look, are they sure its actually an early human and not a chimp? I've seen other studies done where they call them early humans but I remember the quote "so similar to early chimps that there is no difference between the two"

It seems stupid, but often stupid conclusions happen when they are driven by money to produce data and results.

[cherimoya_kid]

These creatures may not even have been direct human ancestors, from what I can tell from the article.

[TylerDurden]

These creatures may not even have been direct human ancestors, from what I can tell from the article.

The article states the exact opposite actually. Indeed this other article on the same subject makes it clear that the scientists view all the various proto-hominids as consisting of  one species with dozens of variations/subspecies within it. The implication being that modern humans are ultimately descended from a dozen different, ancient  hominid types all over the world , not just a very recent one from Africa.

[Haai]

The article states the exact opposite actually. Indeed this other article on the same subject makes it clear that the scientists view all the various proto-hominids as consisting of  one species with dozens of variations/subspecies within it. The implication being that modern humans are ultimately descended from a dozen different, ancient  hominid types all over the world , not just a very recent one from Africa.

Which other article?

[TylerDurden]

Which other article?

Sorry, must have somehow been deleted. Here it is:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2465171/Does-skull-rewrite-history-mankind-1-8-million-year-old-remains-suggest-human-ancestors-belonged-SAME-species-just-looked-different.html

[Iguana]

Scientists from the Anthropological Institute and Museum in Zurich say Skull 5 suggests a single Homo species could cope with a variety of ecosystems

Could this substantiate the below quote?

The concept of genetic adaptation has been especially useful to me for explaining the shortcomings of alliesthesic mechanisms with food processed by the culinary arts. But how this genetic adaptation to different varieties of fruits was carried out is quite indifferent to me. As already stated many times, our genome has been able to collect data in many very different circumstances, as it dates back to immemorial time, long before primates appeared (we still have the same genes as the bacterias for a variety of proteins structures of our cells, for example).

On the contrary, your argument is based on assumptions about the ENVIRONMENT in which man would have set up its genome, which makes it very risky. We know almost nothing about the exact conditions under which our ancestors were able to spend the tens of millions of years whose memory was added to previous data of our genome: there were all kinds of migrations, environmental changes, climatic hazards about which lack of knowledge prohibits any safe deduction. I prefer to proceed by empirical observation as a first step, even resorting to hypotheses in a second time to explain these observations because this approach is much less random than the opposite course.

[cherimoya_kid]

I still don't see the evidence that these creatures were definitely ancestors of modern humans.  The article mentions no DNA links, nor morphology links.   For that matter, the bone fragments could have found their way to that spot via a different method, like a large storm or a bird.

[TylerDurden]

I still don't see the evidence that these creatures were definitely ancestors of modern humans.  The article mentions no DNA links, nor morphology links.   For that matter, the bone fragments could have found their way to that spot via a different method, like a large storm or a bird.

That last is a ridiculous claim since the parts matched,more or less. At any rate, expecting dna evidence from fossils millions of years old is expecting too much since dna degrades quickly(though we still have been able to determine neanderthal etc. ancestry in modern humans).

[cherimoya_kid]

That last is a ridiculous claim since the parts matched,more or less. At any rate, expecting dna evidence from fossils millions of years old is expecting too much since dna degrades quickly(though we still have been able to determine neanderthal etc. ancestry in modern humans).

It's most definitely NOT a ridiculous claim.  An octopus was recently found on top of a mountain in England, thought to have been dropped there by a bird.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2355631/How-did-octopus-Englands-highest-mountain-Mystery-cephalopod-978m-sea-level-Scafell-Pike.html

And while there's no DNA evidence, there COULD be pretty good morphological evidence.  Is there, though?  The article doesn't mention that. 

[TylerDurden]

Well I got the impression that various parts matched. You do have a point, though. One of the main arguments against the claims that cooking got started c.500,000 years ago in the Zhoukoudian Caves was that the burnt bones appear to have been pushed into deeper, more ancient layers via processes of erosion and other geological phenomena.