81 replies to this topic

[MR.Blueprint]

Harsh86_Patel, on 03 April 2013 - 01:18 PM, said:

That only suggests that there was more interbreeding in Africa then other parts of the world. Africa was more centrally located to other contemporary regions where civilizations existed maybe thats why people flocked there........don't forget gold and daimonds.

you are completely wrong the reason  its so much diversity in africa is because homo sapains lived longer in africas than anywhere else ...it dont take a rocket scientist

Edited by MR.Blueprint, 03 April 2013 - 01:28 PM.

[Everdred]

Harsh86_Patel, on 03 April 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

Maybe,also people today from different parts of the world still go to Africa and inter breed causing even more genetic diversity.How would that prove that Humans originated there?? Half the European nations occupied different parts of Africa because it is mineral rich in the recent past which would have caused great amounts of Inter breeding and genetic diversity, many Asian peoples also went to Africa in the last 5000-6000 years and interbred there to create a lot of genetic diversity.There are so many historical referrences of people from asia and europe going to Africa in the last 5000-6000 years,they must have interbred and caused the genetic diversity.

Like i said the frequency of mutation in modern humans is so low that it is difficult to imagine that our ancestors evolved so fast to give rise to us. We can't even be sure that humans evolved in the manner heralded by the mainstream evolutionist.Still the evolutionist arbitarily give the time frame of last 200,000 years as the life of Homo sapiens but it is entirely possible that Homo Sapiens were present since before.

Also if you agree with the evolutionists that modern homo sapiens evolved 200,000 years back then when would suggest that civilization started?? only 5000-6000 years ago? Basically homo sapiens chilled around the globe for more then 195,000 years and all of a sudden decided to get civilised ....lol. This argument is the origin of all theories suggesting that there were many glorious ancient civilizations of which we do not have a memory and also the ancient astronaut theory who flew down to Earth and gifted our primitive ancestors civilization and in some theories also genetically modified or artificially evolved our primitive ancestor into Us. These are the only two alternatives that make sense..either we acknowledge that civilizations existed way before we today concede or that we were gifted civilization over very short periods of time by Gods/Aliens.

African diversity is old.  That's the important point.  We're not talking about recent mixing, but ancient diversity.  Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, has three significantly different native groups, the Pygmies, Bushmen, and Bantu.  Other areas only have one native population.  In terms of genetic diversity, the most important is the uniparental markers--the mtDNA and Y-DNA haplogroups.  Sub-Saharan Africans have the most diverse, and more importantly, most basal lineages.  That is, through analyzing the different DNA markers, we can see what mutations arose first, and what mutations were later additions.  All of the earliest mutations are found amongst native Africans and no one else.

The 200,000 year age for sapiens isn't arbitrary, per se, but rather based on the archaeological evidence.  We don't have remains for sapiens earlier than that (unless more analysis confirms that the remains discussed in the OP are truly sapiens, and then scholars will start adjusting dating).  And that period might not seem like a long time for evolution to take place, but it is plenty of time, especially given the apparent admixture from Neanderthals/Denisovans that has been identified in non-Africans.

Abramelin, on 03 April 2013 - 12:19 PM, said:

I knew you would say that, but what I found out seems to come very close to a civilization. This is not just about Göbekli Tepe.

And, like I said, the Anatolian culture if you like, didn't come falling out of the sky.

In fact, many of these Anatolian places were already settled near the end of the last ice age.

I felt this bit needed emphasizing.  The Ice Age.  That civilization arose recently isn't a random thing at all, but rather it results from the warming of the climate following the end of the last glacial period.

Civilization occurred because humans developed agriculture, which meant a relatively stable, reliable food supply, which necessitated staying in one place, and which could be stored and accumulated.  This is a prerequisite for civilization.  And during the glacial period, conditions weren't favorable for agriculture.  But once the warming began, we instantly saw the now more evolved human minds devise methods for growing foods, and then slowly we saw more and more diversity and complexity of culture, until eventually civilizations proper arose.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Everdred, on 03 April 2013 - 07:43 PM, said:

African diversity is old.  That's the important point.  We're not talking about recent mixing, but ancient diversity.  Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, has three significantly different native groups, the Pygmies, Bushmen, and Bantu.  Other areas only have one native population.  In terms of genetic diversity, the most important is the uniparental markers--the mtDNA and Y-DNA haplogroups.  Sub-Saharan Africans have the most diverse, and more importantly, most basal lineages.  That is, through analyzing the different DNA markers, we can see what mutations arose first, and what mutations were later additions.  All of the earliest mutations are found amongst native Africans and no one else.

The 200,000 year age for sapiens isn't arbitrary, per se, but rather based on the archaeological evidence.  We don't have remains for sapiens earlier than that (unless more analysis confirms that the remains discussed in the OP are truly sapiens, and then scholars will start adjusting dating).  And that period might not seem like a long time for evolution to take place, but it is plenty of time, especially given the apparent admixture from Neanderthals/Denisovans that has been identified in non-Africans.





I felt this bit needed emphasizing.  The Ice Age.  That civilization arose recently isn't a random thing at all, but rather it results from the warming of the climate following the end of the last glacial period.

Civilization occurred because humans developed agriculture, which meant a relatively stable, reliable food supply, which necessitated staying in one place, and which could be stored and accumulated.  This is a prerequisite for civilization.  And during the glacial period, conditions weren't favorable for agriculture.  But once the warming began, we instantly saw the now more evolved human minds devise methods for growing foods, and then slowly we saw more and more diversity and complexity of culture, until eventually civilizations proper arose.

You can assume using genetic markers which mutations happened first and which happened later....but there is still no way to attach absolute time to when the mutations occurred or how much time had lapsed between the two mutations.You cannot state that these mutations happened the Earliest in Africa as you have not done DNA analysis of the first batch to have undergone the mutation,but you are trying to extrapolate your current observation to a period of time of which nothing is certain i.e 200,00 years back.Also all the observations you mentioned in the first para can be explained by attributing a higher interbreeding rate and a higher reproduction rate.
Like i said all that you can say that you can currently observe a lot of genetic diversity in Africa which could have happened in the last 6000 years itself. No need to go all the way back to 200,000 years.
Again you may not observe this in the populations of all the other regions of the world because it is not necessary that people from different genetic lineages migrated there in the same numbers as they did to Africa.
Agriculture is not a prerequisite for civilization but is a result of it...in my opinion.Everybody has their own currently,some say hunter gatherers had more leisure time then agriculturists would have hence it was hunter gatherers who gave rise to civilizations and agriculture was the after effect.
I was aware that someone would point out why 200,000 years is used the date because we have not found any older samples currently,but most of these fossilised bones are not dated directly but dated by the layer of soil in which they are found so it is a relative date and subject to interpretation and not absolute. In spite of the various issue i have with this date for the scope of this discussion i have stuck with 200,000 years.

[Peter Cox]

There is no assumption. Google the leaky family and follow the evidence that they have gathered from Africa and the ages of such evidence.

You can argue all you want DNA suggest that all people share a common ancestor and that ancestor came from africa. Evoloution suggests (from fossiles) that people evolved in Africa.

Some theroies suggest that early humans sailed out of africa as long as 75 000 years or more ago (this i dont belive but google adams calander for some fun)

So you can argue hear say all you want but can you argue the facts?

[Everdred]

Harsh86_Patel, on 04 April 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

You can assume using genetic markers which mutations happened first and which happened later....but there is still no way to attach absolute time to when the mutations occurred or how much time had lapsed between the two mutations.You cannot state that these mutations happened the Earliest in Africa as you have not done DNA analysis of the first batch to have undergone the mutation,but you are trying to extrapolate your current observation to a period of time of which nothing is certain i.e 200,00 years back.Also all the observations you mentioned in the first para can be explained by attributing a higher interbreeding rate and a higher reproduction rate.
Like i said all that you can say that you can currently observe a lot of genetic diversity in Africa which could have happened in the last 6000 years itself. No need to go all the way back to 200,000 years.
Again you may not observe this in the populations of all the other regions of the world because it is not necessary that people from different genetic lineages migrated there in the same numbers as they did to Africa.

The basal mtDNA and Y-DNA lineages are found in Africa and nowhere else in the world.  Recent admixture is not a plausible explanation for that.  Also geneticists can estimate dates of mutations.  It's by no means extremely accurate, though in recent years some work has been done to significantly improve this.

Quote

Agriculture is not a prerequisite for civilization but is a result of it...in my opinion.Everybody has their own currently,some say hunter gatherers had more leisure time then agriculturists would have hence it was hunter gatherers who gave rise to civilizations and agriculture was the after effect.

Your opinion is factually wrong.  Agriculture significantly predates civilization.  Hunter-gatherers do have free time, but they're too mobile and too few in number to achieve civilization.

Quote

I was aware that someone would point out why 200,000 years is used the date because we have not found any older samples currently,but most of these fossilised bones are not dated directly but dated by the layer of soil in which they are found so it is a relative date and subject to interpretation and not absolute. In spite of the various issue i have with this date for the scope of this discussion i have stuck with 200,000 years.

Relative dating is when you date items in relation to other things.  So if an archaeologist finds an item in the top layer of their dig site, and then finds one in the third layer of their site, they'll conclude that the second item is older than the first.  That's relative dating.  Absolute dating is simply applying a specific date to an item.  Absolute dates can be derived from the item themselves (e.g. a coin with the name or face of the guy who minted it) or from the archaeological context (e.g. anything at Pompeii is dated "before 79 AD", or the rock layers in which a fossil is found).

Absolute dates derived from the context are just as firm as direct dating if the context is secure (i.e. there is no evidence of intrusion/contamination).

[Harsh86_Patel]

MR.Blueprint, on 03 April 2013 - 01:27 PM, said:

you are completely wrong the reason  its so much diversity in africa is because homo sapains lived longer in africas than anywhere else ...it dont take a rocket scientist

Neither does it take a rocket scientist to understand that within the ambit of last 6000 years so many peoples from different parts of the world have migrated to africa and interbred there to give rise to the currently observable diversity.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Peter Cox, on 04 April 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

There is no assumption. Google the leaky family and follow the evidence that they have gathered from Africa and the ages of such evidence.

You can argue all you want DNA suggest that all people share a common ancestor and that ancestor came from africa. Evoloution suggests (from fossiles) that people evolved in Africa.

Some theroies suggest that early humans sailed out of africa as long as 75 000 years or more ago (this i dont belive but google adams calander for some fun)

So you can argue hear say all you want but can you argue the facts?

Get into the details of how the leaky family dated the evidence they found...they didn't find dna samples though.
I never denied that all people may share a common ancestor but that does not prove that they originated in Africa.