Is the humans originated in africa still a valid theory?
I'm wondering because I remember recently hearing new information about it
| Yes | 18 | |
| No | 7 |
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[
Report Post
]
Comments ( 12
)
-
DADNSCAL
I keep up with evolution news and as far as I know it is. The only new thing is the discovery of the Desinovans, a completely separate species of humans who developed in Asia, after hominids left Africa.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
LloydAsher
Yeah homo sapiens won the great racewar. I mean you still find strains of other hominids in some peoples dna so it wasnt a complete genocide.
I would totally see it, if it was a movie. Stone age wars with neanderthals and other hominid groups.
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
1WeirdGuy
One time I called this kid in elementary a HomoSapian and he went to the teacher and whined "He called me a homosapian" and she just casually said "you are". You could see in his face he died at that moment
Comment Hidden ( show )-
-
-
LloydAsher
That's unusual for a ten year old to know the scenintific name for humans. I can imagine why some of the simpler children might take it as an insult.
Then again when i was that age I often insulted in a higher grade, mainly so there was no counter attack from my bully while still insulting him.
Comment Hidden ( show )
-
-
Boojum
I think a time-lapse movie of our species coming to dominate the planet would actually be pretty damn boring, even if the focus tightened and it went to real-time when there were conflicts over resources.
I suspect it was less a matter of wars between competing groups, and more a case of groups of our ancestors gradually moving into the territories of other bipedal hominoids and exploiting the local resources so much more effectively that the initial group either shifted their hunting grounds, starved, or combined with the new group.
I think a good parallel are the grey and red squirrels of Britain. When North American grey squirrels were released into the wild in the UK at some uncertain point during in the 19th Century (probably in several places, and at several times), they were in direct competition with the native red squirrel for the same ecological niche. That didn't lead to wars between the squirrels (although that would have been amusing), but rather the red squirrels being slowly forced to retreat to areas where they have a marginal advantage over the greys because of very specific environmental differences.
And, yeah, humans are a lot more belligerent than squirrels, and our ancestors had the ability to plot and plan, but still, humans were pretty scarce back then, life was hazardous enough without picking fights, and the world was a huge place.
Comment Hidden ( show )
-
-
-
donteatstuffoffthesidewalk
-
Boojum
Since you don't cite the "new information" you refer to, it's impossible to comment on that. There's so much utter crap faux-science circulating these days that you'd probably be able to find an essay somewhere which asserts that homo sapiens first appeared in what is now Area 51 in Nevada on June 17, 9265 BC, and supports that claim with all kinds of BS that collapses if you spend five minutes Googling it.
It remains the case that the oldest fossils of our hominid ancestors have only been found in Africa, and there's a plausible evolutionary chain from them to homo sapiens. Of course, if you refuse to believe that paleontologists can date fossils with some accuracy, or you refuse to accept that evolution is a valid explanation for the existence of our species, that allows you to believe that our human ancestors magically popped into existence literally anywhere you choose.
It's also the case that DNA technology and the present understanding of how genes alter over time supports the theories that developed when the only evidence was fossils. But again, if you choose to believe that all the work that has gone into researching genetics has led to a collective delusion in the scientific community, then you can just dismiss that evidence with a wave of the hand or come up with some fake-science explanation that seems plausible to people who know little or nothing about genetics.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
LloydAsher
The problem with africa is that is a peice of shit chunk of land when it came to resources, add in the dangerous fauna and extreme tempetures and it doesnt become supprising to see how little technological advances africans had before, during and after contact with greater europe.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
YE
My theory is that they originated from the sole landmass Pangaea and then their DNAs over time varied in an attempt to cope with the different weather and environmental conditions of where on the world globe their chunk of derived landmass (read continent) drifted to after the splitting of Pangaea.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
olderdude-xx
It's also a valid theory that they originated on a plant circling Betelgeuse... There's just no evidence to support that at this time.
Their is a lot of current evidence that mankind originated in what is now known as Africa.
Comment Hidden ( show ) -
litelander8