Graecopithecus freybergi: Oldest Hominin Lived in Europe, not Africa

says the guy who disregards science if it comes from a possibly Jewish researcher.

admit it, science and fact is NOT your agenda here

 

I'm not the one dismissing these findings

 

you dismissed years of research suggesting that all blue eyed people have a common ancestor who had a genetic mutation giving them blue eyes.

why did you dismiss the research? cause the scientist may be a Jew.

that shows science and fact is not your agenda.

 

I dismissed that particular finding because it doesn't make sense given what we know about recessive genes. For a child to have blue eyes he/she must get the recessive genes from his/her parents, both of them. If one has blue and the other has brown, the child has brown eyes. This is easily observable today. For Eiberg/Reich's theories to make sense, there would have had to be 2 blond "mutations" at least for a child to have blue eyes. 1 random mutation with a recessive trait would have been wiped out very quickly.

 

For what it's worth, I don't find this theory entirely shocking or implausible. The oldest city ever discovered is Göbekli Tepe in Anatolia.

 

2 things about this.
1. Bonobo's are humans closest relatives, not chimpanzees.
2. Settled science is called a LAW. Like the law of gravity. Climate change doesnt even qualify as a theory.

 

The cherry on top of the OOA study wasn't the fossil record, it was the DNA map, and that migration started about 100,000 years ago. Now, if they can show a genetic link between this species and modern humans, then we'll have something to talk about. Until then, it's simply the oldest hominid fossil found, and the hominid family tree has many dead ends that are not directly related.

In short, you assume too much, too early, to fit your own pre-conceived bias.

 

What happens if and we we are able to understand gravitational waves and are able to manipulate them. Do you think the "law" will have any updates?

Why does this have to be a knife fight between you guys that is obviously boiled over from previous threads?

Interesting info, it obviously needs more scientific study behind it but it is fascinating to think our theories could be wrong.

 

I doubt that would cause "updates" but it would enable us to travel faster than the speed of light.

Theres no fight. Brewskier and I are on the same page.

 

no you project other peoples positions so you can make some politically and ideological based in your favor.

this find, may or may not change out of africa. more data is needed to change out of africs

 

I'm not assuming anything. I'm reporting on a scientific discovery that has the potential to uproot a lot of progressive dogma.

 

What knife fight? To the best of my knowledge, I've never gotten into any major disagreement with BVWC.

 

I thought they were members of this forum

 

hey, we take one example that fits our made up mind and there you go.
Too much time sucking on their socialist VA SS and Medicare benefits

 

and yet you focus on the 35 year old idea that eye color is based on just one gene, being either dominat or recessive

 

When did I say it was only "one gene"?

 

Seriously, what do the parentheses mean?

 

There is a lot of BS getting thrown around in this thread from both sides.

This is interesting, but doesn't really impact the "out of Africa" theory and no anthropologists in your article or others I read are claiming it does. The oldest homo-sapiens fossils have been found in Africa. That means that our species as far as we know originated in Africa. It is possible that graecopithecus freybergi is an ancestor that lived in the Mediterranean and then migrated back to Africa or it was a separate line that died off. There is no evidence that I am aware of that shows that evolutionary chain leading from Australopithecus to homo sapiens occurred anywhere but Africa.

I agree that settled science is a stupid term. A better way to think of it in my opinion is that a hypothesis remains possible or likely until we get better evidence that either disproves it or makes another hypothesis more likely.

 

Wait? Liberals now must support the "Out of Africa" theory because it implies that the first human was black, and they must also vehemently oppose any new evidence that contradicts this theory? Is that what this thread is about? When was that added to the oath?

 

You're trying desperately to find something or someone to tell you that you don't have brown/black genes in your pool. Try again.

 

This:

 

Your 2 needs some serious help.

A fact is a recorded observation - in this case a tooth found in a specific location, depth, etc. Science has NO WAY of producing a fact using logic. Facts are physical observations. You can't create a physical observation by logic.

A theory describes how something works. Laws do not. Theories do not become laws. A theory is the very best science has to offer. There isn't anything better or more certain than a theory.

"Settled science" just means that the vast majority of science is in support.

There are various theories within climatology, and suggesting that "climate change" doesn't qualify as a theory would require you to provide a far more specific statement for your brazen statement.

Note that Newton's law of gravity gets taught and used a lot, even though Einstein's theories show it is not always true. For example, Newton's law of gravity is not good enough for GPS to work.

We like Newton's law because it is easy and covers a lot of common situations, not because it is correct.

 

You missed the last meeting. That's when the central committee added it to the by-laws. Set your decoder ring wrong again, didn't you?

 

Agreed. There is likely to be no one clear split between humans and modern ape lineages, anyway. Groups of ancient hominids lived and evolved in separate population groups that would migrate around and later encounter each other again, as modern man encountered Neanderthal much later on. It is interesting to think that such early hominins lived outside of Africa, though obviously it wasn't too far away from Africa in this case. No doubt many such groups migrated outside of Africa, as we've seen from other protohuman type fossils found even farther away than the Mediterranean, and of course it wasn't just humans ranging outside of Africa.

Far as I know, though, the modern human lineage emerged from Africa, and we have no fossils as yet to say otherwise. These sure don't.

 

chimpanzees share 96% of our DNA

the greatest genetic difference between human beings is 0.1%

so yeah, this thread has been debunked.