The Khoisan

[N21163]

[QUOTE=1798;416407][QUOTE=N21163;416396]

The difference between you and me is that I believe in God and I am thankful for that much.

Now you are an expert on my faith?

You know nothing of my beliefs or what I am thankful for, so stop pretending like you do.

Once again you are deviate off topic.

If your faith prevents you from understanding, or wanting to understand, processes involved in scientific disciplines then that's your problem.

[1798]

[QUOTE=N21163;416396][QUOTE=1798;416375]

Based on what exactly?


I'll rephrase...this "opinion" is based on what exactly?

Any evidence? Any research?



It's becoming all the more clear that you do not understand processes involved scientific disciplines.

It would be an idea for you to sit in on evolutionary biology classes and read some books on the subject

The difference between you and me is that I believe in God and I am thankful for that much.

[N21163]

[QUOTE=1798;416375][QUOTE=N21163;416347]Based on what exactly?

This is my view. Human replication is 99.9% accurate today. In the beginning the accuracy was greater than 99.9%.

I'll rephrase...this "opinion" is based on what exactly?

Any evidence? Any research?

Some scientists think that if they add millions of years to our origin that makes it right.

It's becoming all the more clear that you do not understand processes involved scientific disciplines.

It would be an idea for you to sit in on evolutionary biology classes and read some books on the subject

[1798]

Why did you pick 500,000 years ago? Are you referring to divergence in different human subspecies? or something else?

Humans and chimps share a common ancestor millions of years ago, not 500,000 years ago.

Evolutionary biology is a subject that uses findings from a number of scientific disciplines including paleontology, archaeology, primatology, evolutionary psychology, physical anthropology, ethology, embryology and more recently genetics (to name a few).

If you don't understand how this has occurred read some more books, watch youtube videos, attend a university lecture or two on the subject.

Some scientists think that if they add millions of years to our origin that makes it right.

[1798]

[QUOTE=N21163;416347]Based on what exactly?
[QUOTE]

This is my view. Human replication is 99.9% accurate today. In the beginning the accuracy was greater than 99.9%.

[N21163]

Either quote my posts in clear sections or do not quote me at all.

I do not recall stating "Human replication is 99.9% accurate today. In the beginning the accuracy was greater than 99.9%."

So why did you include it when you were quoting my previous post? I know it is easy for you to cut and paste without reading things thoroughly but this is where misquotes and misunderstandings occur.

What evidence have the scientists got from 500,000 years ago?

Why did you pick 500,000 years ago? Are you referring to divergence in different human subspecies? or something else?

Humans and chimps share a common ancestor millions of years ago, not 500,000 years ago.

Evolutionary biology is a subject that uses findings from a number of scientific disciplines including paleontology, archaeology, primatology, evolutionary psychology, physical anthropology, ethology, embryology and more recently genetics (to name a few).

If you don't understand how this has occurred read some more books, watch youtube videos, attend a university lecture or two on the subject.

If you choose not to accept this scientific view, because it doesn't fit with some belief that you have or otherwise, then that is your problem entirely.

[1798]

Based on what exactly?
Human replication is 99.9% accurate today. In the beginning the accuracy was greater than 99.9%.


Not at all likely given the evidence and research that we currently have.

What evidence have the scientists got from 500,000 years ago?

[N21163]

It is just amazing that that you can be so consistently wrong, regardless of the topic.

[N21163]

@N21163
"Chimps and modern humans share a common ancestor."

You are wrong, we don't.

Based on what exactly?

I am not wrong about L11 originating in western Europe.

No one mentioned anything about L11, nor its origins.

This is yet another example of you deviating from your original post.

Stick to your original topic.

The first humans could have originated outside Africa.

Not at all likely given the evidence and research that we currently have.

Do you have any new material that actually supports such an idea?

I would say no.

Try reading the posts and articles that have been posted to you in this thread, I posted a link to the article you mentioned.

Read through the discussion and conclusion section.

[1798]

It is just amazing that that you can be so consistently wrong, regardless of the topic.

I am not wrong about L11 originating in western Europe.

The first humans could have originated outside Africa.

[1798]

@N21163
"Chimps and modern humans share a common ancestor."

You are wrong, we don't.

[GST]

The Out of Africa 70,000 ybp is only a theory at present. Humans could have originated in Europe 300,000 ybp or even a million ybp.

It is just amazing that that you can be so consistently wrong, regardless of the topic.

[N21163]

There is no evidence to show that A0-T originated in Africa...

Really? All current evidence does suggest that it originated in Africa.

You won't have to spend a long time searching google to find all current research points to African origin.

I am not related to the chimp

If you choose not to believe in evolution that's your business.

Chimps and modern humans share a common ancestor.

...and I believe that the chimp being found in Africa has something to do with the Out of Africa theory.

That we share a common ancestor that's about it.

http://forums.familytreedna.com/showpost.php?p=416336&postcount=12

Did you actually read this article or just the abstract??

The authors believe they may have some genetic and archaeological evidence to support 3 possible different models for humans migrating out of Africa...

Try reading the discussion and conclusions section of the article at least: https://www.academia.edu/14880455/Re..._out_of_Africa

"Further work is needed to understand what constraints genetic and archaeological data place on models of ancestral population dispersal across the Middle East and South Asia. We have shown that inferences from single-locus genetic data need to be based on an understanding of the relationship between demography and genealogical stochasticity, as embodied in coalescent or other population genetic models. Just as archaeology has largely, but not entirely, transcended the “culture-history” approach, according to which pottery and tool types were simplistically seen as direct proxies for populations, so genetic analyses must avoid the “gene-history/population history” paradigm. "

This type of research is in it's infancy. They think that there is more to the Out of Africa theory than the more simplified two migration period approach. There may have been some back and forth migrations along the way, but more research and analysis is needed.

Getting back to the point at hand. Once again you begin a post saying one thing and then try and grapple to find articles to support your statements.
This article states nothing oh the Khoisan or Homo Heidelbergensis, which was what your opening post was about.
It also does not state anything about Humans possibly originating in Europe.

This article simply looks at a re-analysis of the ways humans may have migrated into Europe, during what periods and whether there was any back-migrations back to Africa from parts of the Middle East.

Read the whole article not just the abstract*.

*The abstract does not even support what you have been discussing

[1798]

Rethinking the dispersal of Homo sapiens out of Africa

Huw S. Groucutt, Michael D. Petraglia, Geoff Bailey, Eleanor M. L. Scerri, Ash Parton, Laine Clark-Balzan, Richard P. Jennings, Laura Lewis, James Blinkhorn, Nick A. Drake, Paul S. Breeze, Robyn H. Inglis, Maud H. Devès, Matthew Meredith-Williams, Nicole Boivin, Mark G. Thomas andAylwyn Scally

"Current fossil, genetic, and archeological data indicate that Homo sapiens originated in Africa in the late Middle Pleistocene. By the end of the Late Pleistocene, our species was distributed across every continent except Antarctica, setting the foundations for the subsequent demographic and cultural changes of the Holocene. The intervening processes remain intensely debated and a key theme in hominin evolutionary studies. We review archeological, fossil, environmental, and genetic data to evaluate the current state of knowledge on the dispersal of Homo sapiens out of Africa. The emerging picture of the dispersal process suggests dynamic behavioral variability, complex interactions between populations, and an intricate genetic and cultural legacy. This evolutionary and historical complexity challenges simple narratives and suggests that hybrid models and the testing of explicit hypotheses are required to understand the expansion of Homo sapiens into Eurasia."

[1798]

What are you on about? The subclade you are describing is an African subclade of modern humans. Decades of research show that virtually all other Y-haplogroups branches descend from A0-T: http://yfull.com/tree/A0-T/



So you are trying to suggest it is unsubstantiated? Based on what? The Gospel of Ciaran? What you are stating has no basis in any type of research or analysis.



Based on the voices in your head?

Given the plethora of research you are foolish to suggest such things.

There is no evidence to show that A0-T originated in Africa and I know that we are all descendants.

I am not related to the chimp and I believe that the chimp being found in Africa has something to do with the Out of Africa theory.