Skip to comments.Humans 'left Africa much earlier'
Posted on 01/27/2011 4:03:33 PM PST by decimon
Modern humans may have emerged from Africa up to 50,000 years earlier than previously thought, a study suggests.
Researchers have uncovered stone tools in the Arabian peninsula that they say were made by modern humans about 125,000 years ago.
The tools were unearthed at the site of Jebel Faya in the United Arab Emirates, a team reports in the journal Science.
The results are controversial: genetic data strongly points to an exodus from Africa 60,000-70,000 years ago.
Simon Armitage, from Royal Holloway, University of London, Hans-Peter Uerpmann, from the University of Tuebingen, Germany, and colleagues, uncovered 125,000-year-old stone tools at Jebel Faya which resemble those found in East Africa at roughly the same time period.
The authors of the study say the people who made the tools were newcomers in the area with origins on the other side of the Red Sea.
The researchers were able to date the tools using a light-based technique, which tells scientists when the stone artefacts were buried.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.co.uk ...
Faya scrutiny ping.
I’m of the opinion that civilizations have risen and fallen on the earth for millions of years.
While that isn't millions, it is interesting to contemplate that the vast majority of the history of humans is “prehistoric” - and that civilization is a rather late comer to the human cultural table.
Who’s to say they were human? What’s the test for determining? Is the soul identifiable from fossils? Some how I don’t think so...
My question is when did they become white and move to Europe?
How do you suppose that Black people got black and White people got white if not for natural selection of genetic variation?
“The tools were unearthed at the site of Jebel Faya in the United Arab Emirates, a team reports in the journal Science.”
Chimpanzees are humanity’s closest living relatives, and apparently learned how to make and use tools long ago without human help, with stone hammers found at a chimp settlement in the Ivory Coast dating back 4,300 years. They are even capable of making spears to hunt other primates for meat, and are known to have developed specialized tool kits for foraging army ants.
So I guess tools are not the measure...
They are known to science as Neanderthals.
Later on other humans moved other places.
Another group of humans known as the San People moved SOUTH in Africa and turned into the ancestors of all known groups of humans.
This group still exists and exhibits traits of all the other groups of humans descended from the San ancestors.
Bantus and Europeans used to hunt the San in South Africa like they were game animals. (SEE: Nils Van der Post ~ "The Sands of the Khalahari")
In a hundred thousand years or so? Evolution to me would be that where there’s almost a lack of sun the body would be black to absorb heat. Blacks are more susceptible to sunburn than whites. So basically what you’re saying is if Africans moved to a less sunlit area, say, Norway, eventually they’ll turn white, have blond hair and narrow noses? In a hundred thousand years or so.
Like with any science, any real science, there isn’t unanimity on any of this. There is a multiregional model of human development, of long-standing, that was just strengthened recently by work done sequencing the Neanderthal genome (up to about 5% of the native European genome, ie. Whites), and similarly looking at Denisovan genes (up to about 5% of the Papua New Guinean genome, and probably other Melanesians, Asians). Even, of all places, The New York Times, in an odd little paragraph in their daily editorial a few days ago, accepted these as fact - surprising because they’re involved in racial differences, something NYT seems to pretend are all imaginary (except when it serves a leftist purpose). The fossil record is fragmentary, at best. Some of this dating relies heavily on mathematical estimations of genetic change over time, without much real knowledge of variations in rate of change by other factors like climate, diet. The fragmentary fossil record isn’t helped by much of human development having taken place near bodies of water, often at times when the sea level has been lower than today. Many sites are now far underwater.
I’ve read where Neanderthals were a small select group that suffered vitamin deficiencies. That’s why they developed like that. Have there been cases of Neanderthals in, say, China? Or other parts of the world? And how did humans evolve in other places? Separately from Africa?
Oppenheimer when asked if his was the first ever detonation of of a nuclear bomb, he said. Yes, in modern times.
Black skin, skin with higher melanin content, is more protected from the Sun than white skin. This is why melanin is also an inducible gene, laying in the sun increases the amount of melanin in your skin temporarily, to protect you from further exposure.
Yes, what I am saying is that a dark skinned population that moved to Norway (back in the day) would be under extreme selective pressure (caused by rickets) to accumulate less functional or less induced alleles of all the genes that put melanin into the skin.
How do you suppose a single human population derived such obvious differences, if not for natural selection of genetic variation?
I guess it begs the question of how humanity developed into three distinct races: Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid. Don’t you think there should be some residual traces in each race? Why are they so different/distinct from each other? You said that black skin is more protected from the sun but then why are black skinned people more susceptible to sunburn? Then too, there are several levels of black skinned people in Africa. Shouldn’t they all be the same?
Michael Cremo's "Forbidden Archeology" should be required reading.
Give me a hint as to what it’s about... I’m always interested in the forbidden...