Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Skull Fossil Offers New Clues on Human Journey From Africa

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Skull Fossil Offers New Clues on Human Journey From Africa

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/29/sc...tion.html?_r=0
    "In an email, Dr. Delson praised the journal authors “for hitting the mark with their analyses and interpretations, reaching all the possible conclusions one could think of: The partial skull combines a basically modern human form with a few features also found in Neanderthals.” In addition, he pointed out, the analysis “supports the similarity of its shapes” to those of modern Africans and early modern humans from Europe, such as the Cro-Magnons."

  • #2
    more politicised pseudoscience. Out of Africa says more about the decline of the USA and western science than of human origins. CroMagnon. Doubt he came out of Africa.
    That these dna companies promote OOA as if it was proven harms their reputation.

    http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.it/...ve-out-of.html

    Comment


    • #3
      "politicized" ?

      What do you think it has to do with politics? Have you read any of the scientific literature on the subject, or have you just rejected it based on some idealogical commitment?

      Comment


      • #4
        The cited Russian geneticists are headed by Anatole Klyosov. I am very familiar with his work--I read it when he originally published it in Russian. He hasn't "disproved" anything. Rather, he takes the highly controversial view that no one was "really" human until 50-100 thousand years ago. In Y-DNA terms, he considers haplogroups C through T as truly human, whereas A and perhaps also B were originally pre-human or subhuman and acquired humanity only by admixture with the C-T crowd. Thus, according to his definitions, true humanity did not begin in Africa but somewhere else. He originally placed the origin of true humanity on what he calls the Russian Plain (actually called the East European Plain); but has more recently taken a less rigidly nationalistic position.

        One might say that he believes in the Great Leap Forward, to an extent and in terms far more extreme than most proponents of that hypothesis would be comfortable with. The alternative model is the continuity hypothesis.
        Last edited by lgmayka; 3 February 2015, 06:30 PM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by dnoone View Post
          more politicised pseudoscience. Out of Africa says more about the decline of the USA and western science than of human origins. CroMagnon. Doubt he came out of Africa.
          That these dna companies promote OOA as if it was proven harms their reputation.

          http://atlanteangardens.blogspot.it/...ve-out-of.html
          Robert Zepehr that runs that sight is a joke. You have go to be kidding posting his trash.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by lgmayka View Post
            The cited Russian geneticists are headed by Anatole Klyosov. I am very familiar with his work--I read it when he originally published it in Russian. He hasn't "disproved" anything. Rather, he takes the highly controversial view that no one was "really" human until 50-100 thousand years ago. In Y-DNA terms, he considers haplogroups C through T as truly human, whereas A and perhaps also B were originally pre-human or subhuman and acquired humanity only by admixture with the C-T crowd. Thus, according to his definitions, true humanity did not begin in Africa but somewhere else. He originally placed the origin of true humanity on what he calls the Russian Plain (actually called the East European Plain); but has more recently taken a less rigidly nationalistic position.

            One might say that he believes in the Great Leap Forward, to an extent and in terms far more extreme than most proponents of that hypothesis would be comfortable with. The alternative model is the continuity hypothesis.
            So, some of these experts think that humans looked like apes 200,000 ybp. What did modern day apes and chimps look like 200,000 ybp? humans!!!!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 1798 View Post
              So, some of these experts think that humans looked like apes 200,000 ybp.
              You misunderstand. The position of Klyosov et al. is far more disturbing:

              He believes that although the Africans of 100,000 years ago were "anatomically modern," they were "behaviorally archaic." In blunt terms, he believes that the Africans of 100,000 years ago looked quite human but nevertheless did not have souls.

              That's what the debate about so-called behavioral modernity and the alleged Great Leap Forward is really about. One of the many ironies of this hypothesis is that it limits full human dignity to a very small percentage of today's population--those who can speak, worship, paint, dance, sing, tell stories, cook, play games, and tell jokes. In fact, proponents of this hypothesis say, you are not a modern human unless you can choreograph a new dance, compose a new song, make up an original funny joke, whip up a delicious new dish, etc.
              ---
              Modern human behavior is observed in cultural universals which are the key elements shared by all groups of people throughout the history of humanity. Examples of elements that may be considered cultural universals are language, religion, art, dance, singing, music, myth, cooking, games, and jokes.
              ...
              There is also an important distinction to be made between when humans developed the ability to invent, in contrast to developing the ability to adopt, modern human behavior...There is potentially an evolutionary abyss between inventing and adopting; for instance, Homo erectus and Homo ergaster produced with little advancement essentially the same sharpened stone tools for over a million years, but there is no scientific evidence at hand that could prove that they were incapable of producing composite stone tools, such as spears, if shown how to do so.
              ---

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by lgmayka View Post
                You misunderstand. The position of Klyosov et al. is far more disturbing:

                He believes that although the Africans of 100,000 years ago were "anatomically modern," they were "behaviorally archaic." In blunt terms, he believes that the Africans of 100,000 years ago looked quite human but nevertheless did not have souls.

                That's what the debate about so-called behavioral modernity and the alleged Great Leap Forward is really about. One of the many ironies of this hypothesis is that it limits full human dignity to a very small percentage of today's population--those who can speak, worship, paint, dance, sing, tell stories, cook, play games, and tell jokes. In fact, proponents of this hypothesis say, you are not a modern human unless you can choreograph a new dance, compose a new song, make up an original funny joke, whip up a delicious new dish, etc.
                ---
                Modern human behavior is observed in cultural universals which are the key elements shared by all groups of people throughout the history of humanity. Examples of elements that may be considered cultural universals are language, religion, art, dance, singing, music, myth, cooking, games, and jokes.
                ...
                There is also an important distinction to be made between when humans developed the ability to invent, in contrast to developing the ability to adopt, modern human behavior...There is potentially an evolutionary abyss between inventing and adopting; for instance, Homo erectus and Homo ergaster produced with little advancement essentially the same sharpened stone tools for over a million years, but there is no scientific evidence at hand that could prove that they were incapable of producing composite stone tools, such as spears, if shown how to do so.
                ---
                It is difficult to understand why our ancestors were hunter-gatherers for 100s of thousands of years. Then 12,000 years ago things changed dramatically when farming began. Did a child fall on his head and survive with a new way of seeing stuff?

                Comment


                • #9
                  "It is difficult to understand why our ancestors were hunter-gatherers for 100s of thousands of years. Then 12,000 years ago things changed dramatically when farming began. Did a child fall on his head and survive with a new way of seeing stuff?"

                  It is difficult. And it happened in more than one place in the world at about the same time. You might find this article interesting from a few years ago. I stumbled on it recently. He refers to this as the sapient paradox. The author is a prominent linguist.

                  Neuroscience, evolution and the sapient paradox: the factuality of value and of the sacred
                  http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.o...1499/2041.long

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by PNGarrison View Post
                    "It is difficult to understand why our ancestors were hunter-gatherers for 100s of thousands of years. Then 12,000 years ago things changed dramatically when farming began. Did a child fall on his head and survive with a new way of seeing stuff?"

                    It is difficult. And it happened in more than one place in the world at about the same time. You might find this article interesting from a few years ago. I stumbled on it recently. He refers to this as the sapient paradox. The author is a prominent linguist.

                    Neuroscience, evolution and the sapient paradox: the factuality of value and of the sacred
                    http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.o...1499/2041.long


                    http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/132/3/820
                    "What makes the human mind unique? One answer would be our particular kind of culture, which might be called ‘mindsharing’ culture. Human beings are not only able to detect the existence of other minds, and to understand that those minds have beliefs, but are also able to form networks of trust built around shared intentions and beliefs. No other species does anything like this."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by 1798 View Post
                      It is difficult to understand why our ancestors were hunter-gatherers for 100s of thousands of years. Then 12,000 years ago things changed dramatically when farming began. Did a child fall on his head and survive with a new way of seeing stuff?
                      I don't think we have resolved the mystery of invention.

                      Does anyone really think that Thomas Edison was a demigod, or even that he was smarter than everyone else on earth at the time? He himself did not seem to think so--he coined the famous phrase: "Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration." He certainly worked hard, but did he really work harder than anyone else on earth?

                      How, then, do we explain that he invented a practical incandescent electric light bulb before anyone else? In fact, if he had slacked off instead of working, when would anyone have invented such a light bulb? Five years later? One hundred years later? One thousand years later?

                      Consider this: The wheel was apparently invented somewhere in West Eurasia around 3500 BC, and revolutionized transport. In contrast, Native Americans never did invent a practical wheel, even though they did independently invent agriculture and some other technologies.

                      Hopefully, no one attributes a technological difference like this to inherent superiority or intelligence. But then, to what do we attribute it?
                      - Divine choice
                      - Random chance
                      - Climate differences
                      - Geographical differences
                      - A combination of facilitating or impelling factors (e.g., the presence of large domesticatable animals who can pull carts and wagons)
                      - Etc.

                      This is the mystery of invention.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by lgmayka View Post
                        I don't think we have resolved the mystery of invention.

                        Does anyone really think that Thomas Edison was a demigod, or even that he was smarter than everyone else on earth at the time? He himself did not seem to think so--he coined the famous phrase: "Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration." He certainly worked hard, but did he really work harder than anyone else on earth?

                        How, then, do we explain that he invented a practical incandescent electric light bulb before anyone else? In fact, if he had slacked off instead of working, when would anyone have invented such a light bulb? Five years later? One hundred years later? One thousand years later?

                        Consider this: The wheel was apparently invented somewhere in West Eurasia around 3500 BC, and revolutionized transport. In contrast, Native Americans never did invent a practical wheel, even though they did independently invent agriculture and some other technologies.

                        Hopefully, no one attributes a technological difference like this to inherent superiority or intelligence. But then, to what do we attribute it?
                        - Divine choice
                        - Random chance
                        - Climate differences
                        - Geographical differences
                        - A combination of facilitating or impelling factors (e.g., the presence of large domesticatable animals who can pull carts and wagons)
                        - Etc.

                        This is the mystery of invention.
                        Interesting thought I sometimes like to think that there is only one organism the universe.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by lgmayka View Post
                          I don't think we have resolved the mystery of invention.

                          Does anyone really think that Thomas Edison was a demigod, or even that he was smarter than everyone else on earth at the time? He himself did not seem to think so--he coined the famous phrase: "Genius is one percent inspiration, ninety-nine percent perspiration." He certainly worked hard, but did he really work harder than anyone else on earth?

                          How, then, do we explain that he invented a practical incandescent electric light bulb before anyone else? In fact, if he had slacked off instead of working, when would anyone have invented such a light bulb? Five years later? One hundred years later? One thousand years later?

                          Consider this: The wheel was apparently invented somewhere in West Eurasia around 3500 BC, and revolutionized transport. In contrast, Native Americans never did invent a practical wheel, even though they did independently invent agriculture and some other technologies.

                          Hopefully, no one attributes a technological difference like this to inherent superiority or intelligence. But then, to what do we attribute it?
                          - Divine choice
                          - Random chance
                          - Climate differences
                          - Geographical differences
                          - A combination of facilitating or impelling factors (e.g., the presence of large domesticatable animals who can pull carts and wagons)
                          - Etc.

                          This is the mystery of invention.
                          Some people are very creative. Some people like me question everything. I have always been like that. My parents told me that when I was a child they were exhausted from trying to answer the questions I asked every day.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            My understanding is that people in hunter-gatherer societies, possibly since long before the dawn of language, have understood the concept of agriculture. Plant a seed & it will sprout; given time & nurture, it will grow. People could have probably adopted agriculture 100,000 years ago, if conditions were right.

                            Why didn't they? Why should have they? Look at the matter, as best as possible, from the perspective of a hunter-gatherer. Why go to a lot of work to grow a crop, just to have it stolen by your neighbors in a dawn raid?

                            Something else happened prior to 12,000 years ago that made the world safe for agriculture; the phenomenon spread so rapidly that agriculture was adopted on several continents within the same time window. But what was that something? The something that made the world safe for agriculture...

                            Around 18,000 years ago, maybe earlier, the human band began to merge with the wolf pack. Wolves figured out that scavenging from human dumps was an easy way to get a meal. But... their adrenaline levels were high. Enter natural selection. Any wolf with significantly lower adrenaline levels would have greater success getting meals; wouldn't even have to hunt. Russian scientists have discovered what happens to canids if they have depressed adrenaline levels... they start to look & act like dogs; in the Russian case, this was discovered with foxes.

                            Dogs were hanging around with humans prior to 12,000 years ago. People with dogs that would bark at intruders could survive the dawn raid. Dogs made the world safe for agriculture... at least from the challenge of human marauders.

                            But once people began to store grain, they discovered another, non-human threat: mice. The solution? Cats.

                            For thousands of years, with the protection offered by dogs and cats, horticultural/ agricultural societies began to develop, and during the Neolithic, steps were made toward a sedentary, pre-urban lifestyle.

                            The future (which ultimately lay in the hands of bronze age warriors) belonged to whomever could innovate a technology that could trump that offered by dogs. And what was that? Horses. On horseback, raiders could steal from farmers & be out of there before the farmers could stand to retaliate... no matter how much the dogs barked.

                            Dogs, cats & horses... beloved by most humans, yet seldom raised and cared for as animals domesticated for meat or milk... are what enabled humans to change the world.

                            This may be way oversimplified, but painted in broad strokes, I think this is what happened.

                            Timothy Peterman

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by T E Peterman View Post
                              My understanding is that people in hunter-gatherer societies, possibly since long before the dawn of language, have understood the concept of agriculture. Plant a seed & it will sprout; given time & nurture, it will grow. People could have probably adopted agriculture 100,000 years ago, if conditions were right.

                              Why didn't they? Why should have they? Look at the matter, as best as possible, from the perspective of a hunter-gatherer. Why go to a lot of work to grow a crop, just to have it stolen by your neighbors in a dawn raid?

                              Something else happened prior to 12,000 years ago that made the world safe for agriculture; the phenomenon spread so rapidly that agriculture was adopted on several continents within the same time window. But what was that something? The something that made the world safe for agriculture...

                              Around 18,000 years ago, maybe earlier, the human band began to merge with the wolf pack. Wolves figured out that scavenging from human dumps was an easy way to get a meal. But... their adrenaline levels were high. Enter natural selection. Any wolf with significantly lower adrenaline levels would have greater success getting meals; wouldn't even have to hunt. Russian scientists have discovered what happens to canids if they have depressed adrenaline levels... they start to look & act like dogs; in the Russian case, this was discovered with foxes.

                              Dogs were hanging around with humans prior to 12,000 years ago. People with dogs that would bark at intruders could survive the dawn raid. Dogs made the world safe for agriculture... at least from the challenge of human marauders.

                              But once people began to store grain, they discovered another, non-human threat: mice. The solution? Cats.

                              For thousands of years, with the protection offered by dogs and cats, horticultural/ agricultural societies began to develop, and during the Neolithic, steps were made toward a sedentary, pre-urban lifestyle.

                              The future (which ultimately lay in the hands of bronze age warriors) belonged to whomever could innovate a technology that could trump that offered by dogs. And what was that? Horses. On horseback, raiders could steal from farmers & be out of there before the farmers could stand to retaliate... no matter how much the dogs barked.

                              Dogs, cats & horses... beloved by most humans, yet seldom raised and cared for as animals domesticated for meat or milk... are what enabled humans to change the world.

                              This may be way oversimplified, but painted in broad strokes, I think this is what happened.

                              Timothy Peterman
                              Perhaps the hunter-gatherers were happy and content with their lives. They didn't want to change. Are we better of today or maybe we think that we are when we aren't? We live in a world that is driven by pure greed not pure need.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X