[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Look up.

That article still assumes a common African ancestor to humans.

Let me clarify: “out if Africa “ theory which is the overwhelming majority theory says that HSS evolved in Africa from Homo Erectus and then spread out over the world, following earlier migrations of Homo Erectus and Neanderthals who also evolved in Africa and then spread out over the world

Alternative theories such as the one in your quote above are “multi-regional origin” theories but they still support that homo Erectus evolved in Africa and spread out over the world. However they believe that HSS then evolved from Homo Erectus outside of Africa

NOBODY not even in the links you’ve posted is suggesting that Lucy -(who is millions of years before Homo Erectus) is not a common ancestor to all humans and NOBODY is suggesting that any humans are descended from Eurasian apes.

[N_Fiddledog]

I think I can help you with a few things there, Beave.

First of all you have to get over this certainty you have that hypotheses you favor are facts. They aren't. They haven't even risen to the level of theory.

The idea Homo erectus is the progenitor of homo sapiens is hypothesis. I'm assuming you know the range of Homo erectus was throughout Asia, Europe and Africa. The idea they all eventually went down to Africa to complete human evolution then spread out again from there is more difficult to peg down.

http://ancientnews.net/2017/09/16/the-o ... placement/

Also you need to get over this idea that if you can suggest some sort of consensus you've done science. You haven't. Consensus has been challenged successfully in science for millenia. It's a thing that's done. This would be especially true in the field we're discussing where new finds challenging existing hypotheses are being discovered all the time.

Lastly, you really want to do a little more reading before you start throwing around words like "nobody."

$1:

NOBODY is suggesting that any humans are descended from Eurasian apes.

Seriously? You believe that? You really need to learn a little bit about how science works. If there's a hypotheses, somewhere there's somebody challenging it.

Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa, scientists find

Danuvius shows us there were bipedal ape-like creatures in Europe millions of years before Lucy out of Africa.

[PluggyRug]

What we can say after all this banter is that we think man evolved from something on planet Earth, where, we don't really know.

[N_Fiddledog]

That sounds about right to me.

$1:

Homo erectus is understood to be ancestral to archaic Homo sapiens, we now know that this hominin form had not made its way into Europe over one million years ago, but groups of these hominins were already in Southeast Asia by 1.8 million years ago. The existence of Asian Homo erectus at such an early point in time has long been factored into arguments suggesting a multi-regional evolution of modern humans, the basic argument being that if modern humans emerged from Homo erectus, why would we see this happening among only African populations and not among Asian H. erectus?

Neanderthals and Denisovans are subspecies of the Homo sapiens lineage; they were so closely related to modern humans that we interbred with them successfully and still carry elements of their DNA with us to this day. With this new data in mind, we should be thinking of the Homo sapiens family as being no less than 744,000 years old, with high diversity and a significantly large global population at some stages in prehistoric times.

There is no longer solid evidence that any of these three human lineages can be pinned down to exclusively African emergence events, two forms are found only in Eurasia and the third is found both there and in Africa.

http://ancientnews.net/2017/09/16/the-o ... placement/

[BeaverFever]

And yet there’s a reason that the overwhelming majority of scientists still support the “out of Africa” theory

To he clear, out of Africa theory is not suggesting that Homo Erectus in Eurasia returned to Africa. What they’re saying is that only the Erectus in Africa evolved into HSS, who thrn left Africa a followed the others.

And just so we’re also clear Lucy is millions of years older than Erectus and the theorized out of Africa event so I don’t know why we’re talking about it at all.

As for the OP and Graecopithicus, they both predate the Genus Homo and their very limited fossil record doesn’t remotely provide enough info to say conclusively whether either one is our ancestor OR that they’re not also the ancestor of Lucy in Africa

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

And yet there’s a reason that the overwhelming majority of scientists still support the “out of Africa” theory

Out of Africa "Hypothesis."

$1:

To he clear, out of Africa theory hypothesis is not suggesting that Homo Erectus in Eurasia returned to Africa. What they’re saying is that only the Erectus in Africa evolved into HSS, who thrn left Africa a followed the others.

And there's evidence supported reason the "hypothesis" is being challenged more every year.

$1:

And just so we’re also clear Lucy is millions of years older than Erectus and the theorized out of Africa event so I don’t know why we’re talking about it at all.

And Danuvius out of Europe is a bipedal ape-like creature that predated Lucy, out of Africa by millions of years.

Why? Are you hoping to slip out of the "ape to man" hypothesis. What? Are you some sort of Ken Hammian, anti-evolutionist or something, now? Or are you saying you know of some concrete evidence showing a Lucy to European homosapien connection that discounts European Bipedal ape-like creatures and explains why homo sapiens were turning up in Asia before Africa? Show me, then.

$1:

As for the OP and Graecopithicus, they both predate the Genus Homo

As does Lucy, one of the australopithecine species. The current majority hypothesis is they evolved into the genus Homo but technically they were not of that genus, as I understand it.

$1:

and their very limited fossil record doesn’t remotely provide enough info to say conclusively whether either one is our ancestor OR that they’re not also the ancestor of Lucy in Africa

Interesting sidebar about Graecy is the reason they can't dig further to discover more is the original specimen was found under what is now somebody's swimming pool. I imagine you don't run into that sort of problem so much in Africa. (I think they've more recently found another specimen in Bulgaria, though.)

So now we have Danuvius out of Europe about 11 million years ago and Graecy about 7 then Lucy out of Africa at about 3 1/2 million. Evidence keeps turning up. Who knows where it will lead.

For now I'm going with:

$1:

we should be thinking of the Homo sapiens family as being no less than 744,000 years old, with high diversity and a significantly large global population at some stages in prehistoric times.

There is no longer solid evidence that any of these three human lineages can be pinned down to exclusively African emergence events, two forms are found only in Eurasia and the third is found both there and in Africa.

[BeaverFever]

As I said repeatedly now, just because there are Eurasian bipedal apes doesn’t mean there are are Eurasian humans. There were bipedal apes in Eurasia and Africa but the massively hugely overwhelming scientific consensus is that only the African variety evolved into the genus Homo. The archaeological record from Africa is quite substantive and the Eurasian record is quite minimal.

And Archaeology happens all over Europe all the time, probably more than in Africa. They even have reality tv shows it. You know, because they had Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, medieval times all that? In fact a lot of European archaeological finds are found precisely BECAUSE of all those swimming pools. Developers and construction workers and excavators in Europe are usually the ones who stumble across it first then they have to call in the authorities. Much less development in Africa. Also it’s a lot easier and safer to excavate in Europe than an expedition into some shithole banana Republic.


It s so comical that your need for a narrative of Euro supremacy in all things includes prehistoric apes from over 10 million years ago when humans didn’t even exist.

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

It s so comical that your need for a narrative of Euro supremacy in all things includes prehistoric apes from over 10 million years ago when humans didn’t even exist.

I knew we were going to get to that eventually, as you realized your argument was falling apart.

And gee, I wished I knew as much about me, as you tell me you do.

See I didn't know I was looking to prove "Euro supremacy."

I thought I was more wondering if I should be feeling guilty about all the fun I was having poking holes in the idea that it was so much more progressive and superior to demand that you will go where the facts lead even if it's Africa - therefore it's Africa.

What make it such fun is it turns out the facts don't necessarily lead to that conclusion.

You tell me they've found more monkey bones on the plains of Africa than under the cities and swimming pools of Europe so that means you have evidence of a chain of links from Australopithecus to modern man.

The problem with that is, it doesn't. And all I have to do is ask why the first genomic and other evidence of species comparable to extant humans weren't found in Africa. They weren't even found in Europe. They were found in Asia.

And there goes your alleged chain of links from Lucy to Beyonce.

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

It s so comical that your need for a narrative of Euro supremacy in all things includes prehistoric apes from over 10 million years ago when humans didn’t even exist.

I knew we were going to get to that eventually, as you realized your argument was falling apart.

And gee, I wished I knew as much about me, as you tell me you do.

See I didn't know I was looking to prove "Euro supremacy."

Yeah you lack insight and self-reflection.

$1:

I thought I was more wondering if I should be feeling guilty about all the fun I was having poking holes in the idea that it was so much more progressive and superior to demand that you will go where the facts lead even if it's Africa - therefore it's Africa.

What make it such fun is it turns out the facts don't necessarily lead to that conclusion.

You tell me they've found more monkey bones on the plains of Africa than under the cities and swimming pools of Europe so that means you have evidence of a chain of links from Australopithecus to modern man.

The overwhelming consensus of scientists is that humans evolved in Africa. Deal with it.

$1:

The problem with that is, it doesn't. And all I have to do is ask why the first genomic and other evidence of species comparable to extant humans weren't found in Africa. They weren't even found in Europe. They were found in Asia.

And there goes your alleged chain of links from Lucy to Beyonce.

Not sure what you’re trying to say here. The oldest HSS was found in Morocco. Homo Habilis, the ancestor of Homo Erectus has only been found in Africa. Erectus is found in Africa and Eurasia, as is HSS

[fifeboy]

At one time I was quite interested in the topic of human origins. This thread, like taking a University Class taught by a haughty, boring prof has cured me of my interest.

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Not sure what you’re trying to say here. The oldest HSS was found in Morocco. Homo Habilis, the ancestor of Homo Erectus has only been found in Africa. Erectus is found in Africa and Eurasia, as is HSS

They seem to be making finds pretty rapidly lately. This shows you why consensus isn't science. There can be a more or less accepted hypotheses to explain some puzzle but a new discovery can blow it out of the water.

For example your NYT article on the Ethiopian find. Much as I love and respect the New York Times I thought one of us should click to the actual abstract of the study in Nature.

$1:

Here we report newly discovered human fossils from Jebel Irhoud, Morocco, and interpret the affinities of the hominins from this site with other archaic and recent human groups. We identified a mosaic of features including facial, mandibular and dental morphology that aligns the Jebel Irhoud material with early or recent anatomically modern humans and more primitive neurocranial and endocranial morphology. In combination with an age of 315 ± 34 thousand years (as determined by thermoluminescence dating)3, this evidence makes Jebel Irhoud the oldest and richest African Middle Stone Age hominin site that documents early stages of the H. sapiens clade in which key features of modern morphology were established.

Now to me that seems to be saying we're not talking about Homo Sapiens. We're talking a stage on the evolutionary path.

As such I'm not sure your and NYT's claims or insinuations are accurate.

The abstract you didn't read starts like this:

$1:

Fossil evidence points to an African origin of Homo sapiens from a group called either H. heidelbergensis or H. rhodesiensis. However, the exact place and time of emergence of H. sapiens remain obscure because the fossil record is scarce and the chronological age of many key specimens remains uncertain.

This H. heidelbergensis was around at the same time or previous to whatever they found in Ethiopia.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Homo-heidelbergensis

And here's another interesting find that was around about the same time or previous to the recent Ethiopian find. It might be even more recent:

$1:

Dated to between 200,000 and 400,000 years ago, the teeth were from an age when Neanderthals and modern humans were not supposed to have existed yet, at least beyond their points of origin in Europe and Africa respectively. At both ends of the possible range, neither Neanderthal nor modern humans were supposed to be in the Middle East yet.

How 2017 Rewrote the Book on Human Evolution

Now if you understood how the "Out of Asia" hypothesis actually worked you'd know why all of that matters.

I gave you links that should have explained it. I don't think you read them. So I'm talking to a wall then. Here I'll give you one more chance. Here's a good example of how an "Out of Asia" hypothesis can be explained using genomic evidence.

The Out of Europe/Asia & Into Africa Theory of Human Origins – New Paper Calls for Paradigm Displacement

Oh and Fifey, I can't speak for Beave, but personally I don't care.

[BeaverFever]

I didn’t say there aren’t other hypotheses, I said that the consensus overwhelmingly supports HSS emerging in Africa If some competing theory is more valid it will eventually become the consensus opinion. That’s literally how all science works. The reason we have space travel and electricity and nuclear weapons is because the scientific community ultimately formed a consensus about the theories behind those things

[N_Fiddledog]

And I said consensus is meaningless in Science.

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

And I said consensus is meaningless in Science.

No ot is not meaningless it is everything. Guess that’s why you’re not a scientist.

[DrCaleb]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

And I said consensus is meaningless in Science.

No ot is not meaningless it is everything. Guess that’s why you’re not a scientist.

Yes he is. He has degrees in climate science, evolutionary biology, and paleontology.