Out of Asia The Dali Skull. 260,000 years old and so modern. http://www.newsweek.com/archaeology-skull-evolution-homo-sapiens-homo-erectus-human-710973 Ancient Hominin Skull From China Suggests Humans Didn't Evolve Just From African Ancestors Most scientists believe all modern humans are descended from African ancestors. (Moi always disagreed) But a new analysis of an ancient Chinese skull found too many similarities to the earliest human fossils found in Africa to be a coincidence; maybe we didn’t all originate in Africa. Known as the Dali skull, it was discovered nearly 40 years ago in China’s Shaanxi province. It belonged to a member of the early hominin species Homo erectus. Its facial structure and brain case are intact, despite being dated to around 260,000 years ago. The Dali skull is so old that archaeologists initially didn’t believe it could share features with the modern Homo sapiens. But Xinzhi Wu of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing believed that due to the overwhelming physical similarities, Homo erectus must have shared DNA with Homo sapiens. After decades of this idea being dismissed by mainstream academia, Wu and a colleague, Sheela Athreya of Texas A&M University, recently reanalyzed the Dali skull and found it may force us to rewrite our evolutionary history after all. It’s incredibly similar to two separate Homo sapiens skulls previously found in Morocco. If we’d found only the Moroccan skulls, and not the Dali skull, it would make sense to keep believing all modern humans evolved in Africa. But the similarities show that early modern humans may not have been genetically isolated from other parts of the world, like what we know today as China. So certain characteristics that we associate with modern Homo sapiens may have actually developed in east Asia, and were only later carried to Africa. We’ll still need further comparisons between the Dali skull and the Moroccan ones. But the implications are enormous; we’re talking about rewriting the origins of our species as we know it, reassessing how our ancestors migrated and interacted and subsequently evolved. “In a real sense we are talking about a multiregional population, connected recurrently by migration and genetic exchanges,” John Hawks of the University of Wisconsin-Madison told New Scientist. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Support Multi regional evolution with continuity through continuous hybridization. Those that couldn't hybridize didn't contribute to us, today. "Quest for Fire" movie, great depiction Moi
So, "out of africa" is now being questioned? Racism!!! Some of us are trying to take away the importance and contribution of the Dark Continent! See, it is not that hard to predict what will be said by someone! This out of africa meme is so entrenched, there will be great resistance to it. Why? Well, perhaps some reasons based on science, but also because many physical anthropologists have built their careers around the out of africa meme, and they are first and foremost human beings, as human nature trumps science up until the evidence is overwhelming, and some of these people just die off. Progress sometimes in science moves ahead at the pace of tombstones. But it looks like early hominids were "traveling men". We always wanted to see what was over the horizon. Our monkey curiosity. There is quite a bit of difference between homo erectus and homo sapiens, with no remains found which represent an intermediate stage between erectus and sapiens. Our ancestors were erectus and then sapiens, a jump from one to the other. Including a large increase in brain size. Anyone ever think about this? No transition, just a jump, a quantum leap? So, it looks like if evolution is true, it occurs not always as a very slow transition, evolution, but in huge leaps. Yet this isn't a part of evolutionary theory, is it? I am asking, having been out of this field since the early 1970s when I got a degree in physical anthropology as we called it back then as opposed to cultural anthropology. I then got smart and got another degree in banking and finance so I could feed myself, as there were so few ways to do that even with advanced degrees in anthropology. Although one of my Profs had once been in the military where he could use his degrees. LOL Or so he told us. One of the older Profs and the dept head, had spent much time in the middle east and literally hated arabs. lol You gotta be really bad for an anthropology Prof to hate a culture, and a people. lol Dr. Pine was his name.
"There has been increasing evidence that the modern human lineage diverged from Neanderthals and Denisovans 500,000 years ago, making us close relatives rather than direct descendants. Before this discovery, it was believed that the early modern humans we evolved from were in Africa 200,000 years ago and looked very similar to modern humans. But what happened in between that time?" http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/07/health/oldest-homo-sapiens-fossils-found/index.html
So, if indeed we diverged from Neanderthal and Denisovans, should there not be some evidence supporting this, physical evidence in the form of bones/fossils? For doesn't the record to date show, the Neanderthal, and then homo sapiens? With no in between? And there is quite a different between Neanderthal bones, and homo sapien bone, right? It's structure and size? And if I recall correctly, I think homo sapien brains were smaller than Neanderthal? Is there a transitional hominid in the record for the Neanderthal line? Correct me if I am wrong but isn't there a lack of transitional hominids? I have not kept up with the science, which is why I am asking. And I wonder if the evidence that we do have would support this idea that is going around that ETs or other more advanced beings genetically engineered homo sapiens from another or other hominids? And if so, there would be no transitional hominids at all. One year you had a group of hominids, which were not homo sapiens, and then suddenly as from nowhere, you had homo sapiens. But perhaps it was longer than a year, but many years? Would the record not support this even more than the current thinking on the subject. For with evolution one would expect transitional hominids, say from home erectus into homo sapiens. And do we see such transitions in the record, and if not, then why are they missing? For there had to be skeletal changes that moved from knuckle draggers to upright walkers, right? Do we see this transition in the fossil record, or do we see a knuckle dragger, and then an upright walker in skeletal design? Is there a transitional record in regards to brain size? Or do we see smaller brains, and then suddenly the appearance in the record of the homo sapien brain? Or does evolution operate in giant leaps for mankind? Or must it always be very slow over great periods of time? So before you call me stupid, some answers to these questions would be in order, if anyone is up on this subject. I like the idea that there are no stupid questions. lol
I still think the seas are retreating, because the earth is expanding, and it does it in leaps an bounds. Has anyone noticed all the cracks in the earth lately: Wyoming, Arizona, S. Africa, Mexico... not to mention Africa splitting into two? And I'm not falling for those stupid 'scientific' explanations about water causing it. .. ....
Denisovans were hybrids! Sapien/Neanderthal/some archaic - Moi's guess is Erectus = archaic designation. Erectus brain size varied greatly from the earliest skulls to more recent. Then there is that cave in the nation of Georgia with a skull family of such diversity, has they not been found in the same place representing the same time would not have been accepted as one people. Remember that find? I have referenced it in this thread.
https://encrypted.google.com/search...hWPaFAKHa44DW4QvwUIJCgA&biw=800&bih=394&dpr=2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmanisi https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmanisi_skull_5 Enlightened comments welcome.
With the oldest anthropoid jaw bone from Europe, dug up during WW1 and the recent finds in China claiming the oldest modern man, The Blame It All On Africa seems less and less likely. I enjoyed reading the link above again and caught the claim there were 3 great melts submerging coastlands when I used the look inside function. I think it said they occurred between 12,000 and 8,000 years ago. 1, 2, 3. And I am reminded of Between the years when the oceans drank Atlantis and the gleaming cities, and the years of the rise of the Sons of Aryas, there was an Age undreamed of, when shining kingdoms lay spread across the world like blue mantles beneath the stars - Nemedia, Ophir, Brythunia, Hyperborea, Zamora with its dark-haired women and towers of spider-haunted mystery, Zingara with its chivalry, Koth that bordered on the pastoral lands of Shem, Stygia with its shadow-guarded tombs, Hyrkania whose riders wore steel and silk and gold. But the proudest kingdom of the world was Aquilonia, reigning supreme in the dreaming west. River deltas are great places for civilizations to grow and first to go under with rise in sea level. A person who made his life as a potter, making goods to manages his sustenance is going to have a pretty bad time being "knocked back to a hunter gatherer" existence and probably wouldn't survive. Imagine. Moi Support Eurasian evolution of peoplekind. r > g Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic, regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.
There's not going to be a rise in sea levels because the earth is expanding. The reason Venice is sinking, had to do with the factories, so they closed them decades ago. NASA Confirms Falling Sea Levels For Two Years Amidst Media Blackout http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...ng-sea-levels-two-years-amidst-media-blackout Natural News) As the global warming narrative unravels under revelations of scientific fraud, data alteration and faked “hockey stick” data models, the fake news media remains suspiciously silent over the fact that NASA now confirms ocean levels have been falling for nearly two years. https://www.naturalnews.com/2017-07...ss-the-planet-for-two-years-media-silent.html
Moi - This is from 2009 by the foremost authority Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told' The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker. "...But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story...." "...Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years..." "...When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown. Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...sea-levels-is-the-greatest-lie-ever-told.html
It could happen, and there's nothing we could do about it unless our sins affects the earth... as Christian theology states, and change our ways. One thing's for sure, I wouldn't want to be living on a high rise if it does happen. What bothers me to be honest is that instead of all this about the earth warming up, what they should be paying attention to is all the plastic that's accumulating in the oceans. I'm shocked at the amount of plastic now being used, compared to the minimal amount that existed when they started the recycling program. It was all a big farce, maybe to create jobs for people and lull them into believing something's being done about the plastic. I have a pied-a-terre in Athens, and the last time my daughter went there, she found that all her garbage bags had disintegrated and became dust. Now why don't we have that? Also about the earth warming up and the storms, the world will just have to adapt to it... especially in the type of homes they build. Anyway this is my opinion. I'm old so I doubt I will see anything, but I do tell my grandchildren if anything happens whether a war or otherwise, to head for a monastery. They are usually self sufficient.
Dr. Morner excuses the error about sea rising because they are following computer models, rather than going into the field and checking for themselves.... which is fine and dandy, and excusable. But why did the scientists agree recently that not only is it rising, but that it has been rising for the past 50 years when according to Dr. Morner, the sea has not been rising? Why are they deceiving the public? As for Venice, it was known 50 years ago that the factories were lowering the water table underneath, and they have been closed.
Consider the actual graph from that same site: NOTHING about climate change is proven or disprove over a period of a few months. Climate has to do with average over time. This particular graph shows a sea rise of about 80mm of sea rise per 20 years - a nearly straight line increase of 4mm per year. Ground based data indicates this rate has been relatively constant since 1930. So, are you going to keep reading from that site? And, are you going to continue reading from the source that lied to you?
What if the best of humanity rests with the how not P.C. Neanderthal Genome. Void in Sub Sahara populations. https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/01fc91c8-6a86-3c50-b62c-cbe89cf504f8/oldest-known-cave-paintings.html Oldest known cave paintings yield big surprise: Neanderthals may have been first artists The 65,000-year-old cave paintings were little more than stencil-like drawings, an abstract combination of lines and geometric shapes and handprints, as well as rudimentary attempts at animal representations. The cave art was made by Neanderthals, representing the first certain Neanderthal paintings ever discovered and suggesting that the modern human species didn't invent creative expression, as previously thought, according to an article published Thursday in Science and Science Advances. Moi r > g
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jul/11/no-single-birthplace-of-mankind-say-scientists No single birthplace of mankind, say scientists Researchers say it is time to drop the idea that modern humans originated from a single population in a single location Wed 11 Jul 2018 11.00 EDT The origins of our species have long been traced to east Africa, where the world’s oldest undisputed Homo sapiens fossils were discovered. About 300,000 years ago, the story went, a group of primitive humans there underwent a series of genetic and cultural shifts that set them on a unique evolutionary path that resulted in everyone alive today. However, a team of prominent scientists is now calling for a rewriting of this traditional narrative, based on a comprehensive survey of fossil, archaeological and genetic evidence. Instead, the international team argue, the distinctive features that make us human emerged mosaic-like across different populations spanning the entire African continent. Only after tens or hundreds of thousands of years of interbreeding and cultural exchange between these semi-isolated groups, did the fully fledged modern human come into being. Dr Eleanor Scerri, an archaeologist at Oxford University, who led the international research, said: “This single origin, single population view has stuck in people’s mind … but the way we’ve been thinking about it is too simplistic.” This continental-wide view would help reconcile contradictory interpretations of early Homo sapiens fossils varying greatly in shape, scattered from South Africa (Florisbad) to Ethiopia (Omo Kibish) to Morocco (Jebel The telltale characteristics of a modern human – globular brain case, a chin, a more delicate brow and a small face – seem to first appear in different places at different times. Previously, this has either been explained as evidence of a single, large population trekking around the continent en masse or by dismissing certain fossils as side-branches of the modern human lineage that just happened to have developed certain anatomical similarities. The latest analysis suggests that this patchwork emergence of human traits can be explained by the existence of multiple populations that were periodically separated for millennia by rivers, deserts, forests and mountains before coming into contact again due to shifts in the climate. “These barriers created migration and contact opportunities for groups that may previously have been separated, and later fluctuation might have meant populations that mixed for a short while became isolated again,” said Scerri. The analysis also paints a picture of humans as a far more diverse collection of species and sub-populations than exists today. Between 200,000 and 400,000 years ago, our own ancestors lived alongside a primitive human species called Homo naledi, found in southern Africa, a larger brained species called Homo heidelbergensis in central Africa and perhaps myriad other humans yet to be discovered. Moi supported Multi Centric Origin before it got popular! A pondering mind is a heavy burden. BTW the above theory works a lot like the movie, Quest for Fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quest_for_Fire_(film) https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0082484/ It has peoples of various levels of development living at the same time. Some serious anthropology went into making this movie. It has Rae Dawn Chong going native. And Ron Perlman doing his brutish act. Moves he used later such as the Alien Resurrection movie when he drops a knife into a wheelchair guy's leg, then goes into an apish dance of delight. The trailer clip looks horrible. Here is a link to one at the end of the movie. The sinking hero learns how to make fire from his captors and takes it back to his people, with Rae Dawn Chong How can you not support multi centric human origin? It has been around a while and makes a great, under appreciated movie. Moi Because Ativism Happens.
As I recall we have a certain percentage of Neanderthal in our genetic makeup so the concept above is merely one of changing the scope from a single point to a geographic region, namely all of Africa. No one should have a problem with this.
You understand this threatens the mono origin claim of South Africa or maybe Ethiopia to now include Morocco too. That's a pretty big spread. If this was the Global Cool off Discussion someone would bring up the democratic count of scientist overwhelmingly supports mono origin fact//theory. And I should reply, "The Vulcan Science Directorate studied the question of time travel in great detail. By the mid-22nd century, they found no evidence that it existed or that it could ..." Continuity Through Continuous Hybridization, not species replacement. Interestingly, Asians have the same percent of Neanderthal genome as Euros But Asians have different segments of Neanderthal genome from Euros. Both share a Neanderthal immune advantage not seen in sub Sahara Africans who have no Neanderthal. Isolation breeds different traits then hybridizing preserves the best. Must have been a lot of failed hybrids too. The best is determined by survival. Hope you enjoy the movie if you like the topic. It really did employ anthropologist to design tribes of different human development.
All scientific hypothesis are subject to being nullified by evidence that disproves them. The mono origin hypothesis is not exempt from this protocol.
In an ideal world. The old guard can delay things like my fav, RNA viruses making DNA to make more RNA viruses. RNA make DNA. Oh the heresy. True story. My mother told me it was dangerous thinking to declare in the late fifties that a couple hundred thousand years was not enough time to create the races and must have involved some breeding with local primitives to create the features of European noses and eyes and pigmentation as opposed to Asian cheek bones, eyelids. etc Beware heresy. Or not.
To tie this in with the study of ancient peoples, there are perhaps quite a few once inhabited sites that are under the sea today. Due to a rising ocean, and it must have risen by quite a bit in the past, to consume inhabited sites, that were occupied when the sea levels were much lower than even today. This is just evidence that climate cycles and it affects sea levels. Without even the burning of fossil fuels. And it happens "naturally" obviously. Man's contribution, given that man is indeed a part of "nature" not separate from it, is obviously a part of this natural cycle. At least we are today. So hardly unnatural, right? I cannot recall when or where I read it, but supposedly man even affected co2 levels related to the demise and loss of huge numbers of Amerindians, due to european conquest. It seems that the loss of farmland, it being used by these people in the New World, and then lost as their cultures imploded from loss of life, mostly from diseases of the europeans, affected co2 and if the current beliefs are true about co2 and climate change, this also affected climate in some way. Which of course means, if true, that co2 extracting flora has an important role in co2 levels. And that begs the question as to why exponentially adding flora, and stopping rain forest deforestation is not taken more seriously, if the fears of a future doomsday are legit? It seems that the way to address climate change, the warming is using tunnel vision, addressing only a single factor and not the other important factor. And this is the main reason I have always questioned the agenda that seems to be behind going after fossil fuel use with taxation, while another area of the co2 rising is being totally ignored, or at least that is what seems to be happening. So, not being able to get those carbon taxes, the hysterical, the doomsday prophets, are all one trick ponies. Explain to me please, if you can, why this is the fact of the matter? One has to question the seriousness of gov'ts as well as the people who are scared in regards to rising co2 and its effect upon climate. I have never seen one person here, who pushes the AGW deal ever even entertain the fact of what adding flora and stopping deforestation of rain forests around the world would do in helping this problem! Not a one, at least that I have seen. Nor do you see them in MSM, or anywhere else promoting this common sense idea. You hear only crickets. And to me personally this is a monumental incoherence, and one has to question it, and should question it. And I do. And generally never receive a single response from your crowd. The Neaderthals were not the only people who we have thought to be less intelligent than homo sapien sapiens. Ha ha. Ok, a bad joke, but it brought the post back to what this thread began its life as.
Deforestation is not being ignored and is being addressed, but it primarily takes place in countries outside the big pollution contributors by not for profit environmental groups. There is no "Fact of the Matter" to address. Also, adding more biota would have minimal effect at this point and Methane is not addressed.
You argued that other factors exist. You didn't argue anything about how those factors compare to modern factors. The objective is to identify effective and affordable mitigations that are sufficient to make a difference. You haven't addressed that AT ALL.
These simply do not exist in any reality I can see...Hell we humans cannot even agree that there is a problem, let alone that we want to do something about it.
