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...
· join list or digest · view topics · view or post blog · bookmark · post a topic · subscribe ·
Bronze Age Forum
Excerpt, or Link only?
· Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword ·
Why are the races so distinct from each other? Genetically they are not, we are a very homologous species as far as DNA similarity goes, but there are obvious differences that are mostly “skin deep” as it were.
Why do you think a black person in Africa who goes half naked every day is more susceptible to sunburn than an Irish red head who freckles and burns in 15 minutes? Someone told you that once and you accept it without any more evidence, despite any and all other evidence?
There is such a thing as genetic variation, and there is a lot more of it in Africa than elsewhere. Why would you suppose they would all be the same any more than that your average Norwegian and your average Italian would be same in amount of melanin content in the skin?
So what mechanism do YOU propose is responsible for population differences?
Is not black a race? Is not white a race? Is not mongoloid a race? What does the term 'race' mean to you?
These quite husky chaps appeared to suffer no vitamin deficiencies!
Do you have an explanation for how?
Are you at all interested in finding one, or knowing one?
Or are you like 0bama in that it is “above your pay grade”?
There's some evidence in the Venona Files that Oppenheimer colluded with Claus Fuchs to give the Soviets the US's atomic secrets.
So far, I’ve only been able to get back to Adam and Eve. Any suggestions?
So, let's say there's one race ~ the San People ~ all that does is cut us off from the differences in the other 13 main haplogroups, plus the various subgroups in the Northern hemisphere.
Interesting that ONE offshoot of the San ~ the folks who moved out of Africa some 75,000 years ago, constitutes about 85% of modern humans!
Does that mean that Africa is not good for us? Or does that say something about us?
Africa is actually a not very good place for humans, and hasn’t been. That is where most human pathogens are found. That is where malaria is such a fact of life that sickle cell anemia is also a fact of life.
Nice that you can get back, but how do you go forward?
How did humans develop our obvious differences between populations?
What was the mechanism?
Ok, well if you look at your chart going backwards you’ll see the distinct differences. Is a Norwegian in the negroid group? Is an Australian Aboriginal in the Mongolian group?
We are Neanderthals:
Recently, a new human species has been discovered in Siberia (see below) and the DNA from these new humans are found only in the DNA of modern Melanesians.
I asked if you considered the subject “above your pay grade” as 0bama famously copped out.
You were copping out, not being 0bama.
If I asked someone “You ‘pay for that microphone’ like Reagan?” I wouldn't be comparing them to Reagan, but using a famous example of the phrase.
Apparently such an answer is “above your pay grade”.
Nice cop out.
Are there another molecule that get passed on hereditary that only you know about?
“Oppenheimer when asked if his was the first ever detonation of of a nuclear bomb, he said. Yes, in modern times.”
As in India?
A Sicilian has less genetic distance between himself and a Japanese person than either has with a Thai person.
You want to lump Japanese people and Thai together, but that is not based upon any objective standard, but upon superficial similarities.
If you want to go 3 races they would be...
1) New Guinean/Australian
If you want to go further down the chart you can also get 5, and they would be....
1) New Guinean/Australian
3) Indians/Middle Eastern/European/etc
There are distinct differences, that is not at all under debate; just how you can possibly get three, and where you would put New Guinean/Australians?
“Michael Cremo’s “Forbidden Archeology” should be required reading. “
Few asylums even allow reading, less “required reading”.
To me it suggests that the genetic "bottleneck" theory related to the explosion of the Toba supervolcano in Indonesia may have validity. Genetic evidence suggests the world's entire human population was reduced to between 1,000 and 10,000 breeding pairs as a result of that calamity about 70,000 years ago. All humans alive today, the theory says, are descended from them. A great deal would depend on where those surviving breeders were located. Maybe they were the San descendants who migrated out of Africa.
Blubba flubba goo goo moo moo gerkin. That's what you just said.
I’m not lumping similar genes together as you say like Chinese and Thai. They’re mongoloid. Within each race, as your chart points out, there are differences. What I was intimating was there are only three distinct races and within those races are sub-races such as Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Thai, Lao, etc. But they’re all considered or classified as mongoloid.
I read several years ago that Caucasians and Mongoloids ((ncluding American Indians) all share a gene that indicates a common male ancestor that lived in Central Asia more than 30,000 years ago.