[llama66]

The thing to take away here is we don't the first fucking thing about anything, really. Our concept that we originated in Africa was based on discoveries 100 years ago. As the Dali Lama once said "when the facts change; so too must my opinion"

[Tricks]

llama66 llama66:

The thing to take away here is we don't the first fucking thing about anything, really. Our concept that we originated in Africa was based on discoveries 100 years ago. As the Dali Lama once said "when the facts change; so too must my opinion"

Correct, which this doesn't, yet, do. Finding evidence of bipedal travel in an ape doesn't suddenly radically alter the hypothesis that we evolved out of Africa. It may provide information to the contrary, but there needs to be more information. We could find these fossils, only to find out this species died out shortly after. Additionally, lets say this find was an ancestor, it still doesn't necessarily conflict with the out of Africa theory, because it's unknown how wide of an area this species lived. The species could have occupied a wide area, and certain areas evolved differently, so those in the european area evolved to a different branch than those of the african area, providing the different branches of Archaic Humans.

Currently the only place that we've been able to uncover earliest homo-sapien history is in Africa. There are other "homo" class species that we have found evidence for elsewhere, but they are long since extinct, and we've found evidence of homo sapiens from 300-270000 years ago only in Africa. There's certainly evidence that homo-sapiens mated with other parts of the "homo" class, but ultimately, the traits from those species largely died out 10s of thousands of years ago.

So what'd I'd guess, in my largely layman understanding, is that homo sapiens came out of Africa and either mated with each other, or in some small part with the localized homo species in whatever area they ended up, likely after conquering it. So the basis of our species derives itself from Africa, with some localized areas sprinkled in randomly throughout the world.

[fifeboy]

llama66 llama66:

raydan raydan:

We share a common ancestor with pretty much every species on this planet.

We don't share a common ancestor with Mosquitoes. or Tricks.

Yes we do!

[N_Fiddledog]

Tricks Tricks:

llama66 llama66:

The thing to take away here is we don't the first fucking thing about anything, really. Our concept that we originated in Africa was based on discoveries 100 years ago. As the Dali Lama once said "when the facts change; so too must my opinion"

Correct, which this doesn't, yet, do. Finding evidence of bipedal travel in an ape doesn't suddenly radically alter the hypothesis that we evolved out of Africa. It may provide information to the contrary, but there needs to be more information. We could find these fossils, only to find out this species died out shortly after. Additionally, lets say this find was an ancestor, it still doesn't necessarily conflict with the out of Africa theory, because it's unknown how wide of an area this species lived. The species could have occupied a wide area, and certain areas evolved differently, so those in the european area evolved to a different branch than those of the african area, providing the different branches of Archaic Humans.

Currently the only place that we've been able to uncover earliest homo-sapien history is in Africa. There are other "homo" class species that we have found evidence for elsewhere, but they are long since extinct, and we've found evidence of homo sapiens from 300-270000 years ago only in Africa. There's certainly evidence that homo-sapiens mated with other parts of the "homo" class, but ultimately, the traits from those species largely died out 10s of thousands of years ago.

So what'd I'd guess, in my largely layman understanding, is that homo sapiens came out of Africa and either mated with each other, or in some small part with the localized homo species in whatever area they ended up, likely after conquering it. So the basis of our species derives itself from Africa, with some localized areas sprinkled in randomly throughout the world.

First of all let's remember that Lucy "out of Africa" is 3 1/2 million years old so let's not get too cocky about a claim of ability to show every stage of evolution without break from her to present. Somebody might say "show me."

Secondly you're incorrect in assuming the theory of Human Eurasian Origins depends only on this recent discovery. It's been around for awhile. I believe the article mentions that the Canadian scientist has been looking into all the other evidences around the question.

Here's one. Speaking of "show me." You tell us you're going to show us how the chain of evidence for the 'out of Africa' theory is unbroken and the only such evidence there is. Very well, explain this:

$1:

There is increasing evidence that the early humans ancestral to both sub-species were already present in Eurasia before the split that gave rise to Neanderthals, Denisovans and Sapiens (Homo sapiens sapiens) and that humans almost identical to those of living populations had emerged in East Asia long before they appeared in the African fossil record. Fossils of seemingly modern humans have been announced by archaeologists working at several Chinese digs, with associated dates ranging from 80,000 to 178,000 years in age.

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

[N_Fiddledog]

Let's be clear we're just talking about different 'HYPOTHESES' hoping to answer the same question.

$1:

The substantiality of the Out of Africa hypothesis was addressed in the light of recent genomic analysis of extant humans (Homo sapiens sapiens, Hss) and progress in Neanderthal palaeontology. The examination lent no support to the commonly assumed Out of Africa scenario but favoured instead a Eurasian divergence between Neanderthals and Hss (the Askur/Embla hypothesis) and an Out of Asia/Eurasia hypothesis according to which all other parts of the world were colonized by Hss migrations from Asia. The examination suggested furthermore that the ancestors of extant KhoeSan and Mbuti composed the first Hss dispersal(s) into Africa and that the ancestors of Yoruba made up a later wave into the same continent. The conclusions constitute a change in paradigm for the study of human evolution.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28689038

[BartSimpson]

Tricks Tricks:

People are idiots.

It's true.

[Public_Domain]

[fifeboy]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

yet another "i'm just asking questions here!" thread from fiddle,
this time entertaining the idea that europe is very special, for reasons, lol

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

1) No because this article is about an ancient ape millions of years older than Lucy. Lucy is not an ape she is a hominid.

Congratulations on knowing the word 'hominid', Beave, but actually the modern definition of "hominid" can include great apes such as Orangutans and Chimpanzees.

You might want to read this one concerning this recent discovery of Danuvius.

Remains of a new hominid from Germany (more than 11.5 million years old) change our views on the evolution of great apes and humans

You may be looking for the term "hominin" which infers human ancestry. You'll notice "Danuvius" (this new discovery) can also be referred to by that term.

The idea Lucy was the earliest example of human evolution and Africa was the cradle of humanity is a theory.

Now, I notice that some, like you and Tricks for example, get angry when that theory is called into question by an opposing hypothesis.

By some weird twist in logic this "out of Africa" thing allows you to think of yourselves as "Progressive" and by a sort of ideological insanity demands you never allow the possibility of any other explanation.

Some of us however believe in following the data.

You’re obviously not following any data or even the articles you posted. The authors are not suggesting humans evolved from this European ape that is entirely a product of your wild imagination and limited education.

Humans evolved in Africa and are descended from apes that evolved in Africa. Not this newly discovered ape.

Only someone like you would try to make something that happened millions of years ago political.

[DrCaleb]

Tricks Tricks:

So what'd I'd guess, in my largely layman understanding, is that homo sapiens came out of Africa and either mated with each other, or in some small part with the localized homo species in whatever area they ended up, likely after conquering it. So the basis of our species derives itself from Africa, with some localized areas sprinkled in randomly throughout the world.

You don't have to guess; there is DNA evidence for this, as well as other Hominids like the Neanderthals and Denisovians coming from Africa and inter mating. There appears to be several hominid migrations out of Africa, usually thought to be a result of the temporary greening of the Sahara that allowed humans to cross the otherwise vast expanses of hot and dry land.

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

,
this time entertaining the idea that europe is very special, for reasons, lol

But, it was! Like the time Florida was attached to Senegal, and Quebec was part of Portugal.

[N_Fiddledog]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

yet another "i'm just asking questions here!" thread from fiddle,
this time entertaining the idea that europe is very special, for reasons, lol

I am asking questions and why aren't you? You seem to be attempting to insinuate some sort of superior intelligence because you don't. That's dumb. But cheer up there's dumber. Applauding you without considering the fatuousness of what you're implying might be dumber.

[N_Fiddledog]

Now as to the questions...

As I understand it the 'Out of Africa' hypotheses began when Johanson discovered the fossilized remains of a bipedal creature in Ethiopia dated to be about 3 1/2 million years old. He named it Lucy after the Beatles song Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds.

$1:

As an upright walker, Lucy strengthened the idea that walking was one of the key selective pressures driving human evolution forwards. The first hominins did not need bigger brains to take defining steps away from apes. Extra brainpower only came over a million years later with the arrival of Homo erectus. Though big brains would clearly be important later, walking remains one of the traits that makes us uniquely human.

"There's no other mammal that walks the way we do," says William Harcourt-Smith of the American Museum of Natural History in New York. "Without bipedalism one starts to wonder what would have happened to our lineage. Would we have happened at all?"

So when we say this new discovery Danuvius could also be bipedal you don't want to use the word "just" or imply it's not a big thing.

Now further on in this piece from the BBC we learn:

$1:

It now looks like Lucy did not take us as close to our common ancestor with chimps as everyone thought. The latest genetic studies suggest we actually split from chimpanzees much earlier, perhaps as much as 13 million years ago. If that is true, the 3-million-year-old Lucy arrived quite late in the story of human evolution. Older fossils, such as the 4.4-million-year-old Ardipithecus described by White and his colleagues, are closer to our ape ancestors.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141127 ... ur-origins

Danuvius goes back 11.6 million years to a period when Europe was hot like Africa. It got colder. Did Danuvius die out, evolve, or migrate? These are questions worth asking. Could that root of man's evolution have migrated south into Africa as the north cooled?

Bloviation, vilification and claims of data that aren't shown don't answer that question.

$1:

Until now, the oldest fossil evidence of bipedalism in humankind's evolutionary tree dated to about 6 million years ago: fossils from Kenya of an extinct member of the human lineage called Orrorin tugenensis as well as footprints on the Mediterranean island of Crete. If Danuvius turns out to be ancestral to humans, that would mean that some of its descendants at some point made their way to Africa.

"Danuvius changes the why, when and where of evolution of bipedality dramatically," said paleoanthropologist Madelaine Boehme of the University of Tübingen in Germany, who led the research published in the journal Nature.

The discovery of Danuvius may shatter the prevailing notion of how bipedalism evolved: that perhaps 6 million years ago in East Africa a chimpanzee-like ancestor started to walk on two legs after environmental changes created open landscapes and savannahs where forests once dominated.

https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/pre ... 538c9.html

[N_Fiddledog]

And one more time...as far as the final evolutionary punch into humanity in its current form goes current evidence, including genomic analysis, supports a Eurasian explanation.

$1:

The substantiality of the Out of Africa hypothesis was addressed in the light of recent genomic analysis of extant humans (Homo sapiens sapiens, Hss) and progress in Neanderthal palaeontology. The examination lent no support to the commonly assumed Out of Africa scenario but favoured instead a Eurasian divergence between Neanderthals and Hss (the Askur/Embla hypothesis) and an Out of Asia/Eurasia hypothesis according to which all other parts of the world were colonized by Hss migrations from Asia. The examination suggested furthermore that the ancestors of extant KhoeSan and Mbuti composed the first Hss dispersal(s) into Africa and that the ancestors of Yoruba made up a later wave into the same continent. The conclusions constitute a change in paradigm for the study of human evolution.

[BeaverFever]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

And one more time...as far as the final evolutionary punch into humanity in its current form goes current evidence, including genomic analysis, supports a Eurasian explanation.

$1:

The substantiality of the Out of Africa hypothesis was addressed in the light of recent genomic analysis of extant humans (Homo sapiens sapiens, Hss) and progress in Neanderthal palaeontology. The examination lent no support to the commonly assumed Out of Africa scenario but favoured instead a Eurasian divergence between Neanderthals and Hss (the Askur/Embla hypothesis) and an Out of Asia/Eurasia hypothesis according to which all other parts of the world were colonized by Hss migrations from Asia. The examination suggested furthermore that the ancestors of extant KhoeSan and Mbuti composed the first Hss dispersal(s) into Africa and that the ancestors of Yoruba made up a later wave into the same continent. The conclusions constitute a change in paradigm for the study of human evolution.

Where’s the link to that one?

[N_Fiddledog]

Look up.