Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5
Abramelin

Remains Of Homo Sapiens 400,000 Years ago

82 posts in this topic

Nonsense: the reason Africa is seen as the cradle of humanity is because its population has the highest genetic diversity of mankind, plus that the remnants of the oldest ancestors of man have been found there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Sometimes only teeth were used to design entire new species around them by the Evolutionist. And it is very probable that Homo Sapiens are older then the evolutionist currently acknowledge,the timelines suggested by these people are mainly to fit things in their evolutionary scheme of things.

A argument based on the frequency of mutations observed in Modern humans which is way less compared to the one attributed to our ancestors by the evolutionists is itself enough to suggest that modern humans are way older then the evolutionists sugget, without having justifiably higher frequency of mutations it is difficult to believe that Modern Humans are only 1,50,000 years old. Their own stipulations of the theory of evolution doesn't allow them such a fast rate of evolution of modern humans.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Nonsense: the reason Africa is seen as the cradle of humanity is because its population has the highest genetic diversity of mankind, plus that the remnants of the oldest ancestors of man have been found there.

None of this information if it is true was known at the time when this theory was first suggested. (guess this is enough to prove that there were ulterior motives).

Please elaborate though, what is meant by highest genetic diversity of mankind? Oldest ancestor of man?

The highest genetic diversity is a very vague argument,since Africa in a way is centrally placed and has been a region where people from all around the world have been staying and breeding in the recent past.Africa has been occupied by various European people and Asian people during known history. Obviously there is going to be a lot of Genetic diversity there how does that prove anything.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of this information if it is true was known at the time when this theory was first suggested. (guess this is enough to prove that there were ulterior motives).

Please elaborate though, what is meant by highest genetic diversity of mankind? Oldest ancestor of man?

Africa contains the most human genetic diversity anywhere on Earth, and the genetic structure of Africans traces to 14 ancestral population clusters that correlate with ethnicity and culture or language. The study lasted 10-years and analyzed variations at 1,327 DNA markers of 121 African populations, 4 African American populations, and 60 non-African populations.

(...)

Other evidence supporting the theory is that variations in skull measurements decrease with distance from Africa at the same rate as the decrease in genetic diversity. Human genetic diversity decreases in native populations with migratory distance from Africa, and this is thought to be due to bottlenecks during human migration, which are events that temporarily reduce population size.

(...)

Our history as a species also has left genetic signals in regional populations. For example, in addition to having higher levels of genetic diversity, populations in Africa tend to have lower amounts of linkage disequilibrium than do populations outside Africa, partly because of the larger size of human populations in Africa over the course of human history and partly because the number of modern humans who left Africa to colonize the rest of the world appears to have been relatively low (Gabriel et al. 2002). In contrast, populations that have undergone dramatic size reductions or rapid expansions in the past and populations formed by the mixture of previously separate ancestral groups can have unusually high levels of linkage disequilibrium (Nordborg and Tavare 2002).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_genetic_variation

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Africa contains the most human genetic diversity anywhere on Earth, and the genetic structure of Africans traces to 14 ancestral population clusters that correlate with ethnicity and culture or language. The study lasted 10-years and analyzed variations at 1,327 DNA markers of 121 African populations, 4 African American populations, and 60 non-African populations.

(...)

Other evidence supporting the theory is that variations in skull measurements decrease with distance from Africa at the same rate as the decrease in genetic diversity. Human genetic diversity decreases in native populations with migratory distance from Africa, and this is thought to be due to bottlenecks during human migration, which are events that temporarily reduce population size.

(...)

Our history as a species also has left genetic signals in regional populations. For example, in addition to having higher levels of genetic diversity, populations in Africa tend to have lower amounts of linkage disequilibrium than do populations outside Africa, partly because of the larger size of human populations in Africa over the course of human history and partly because the number of modern humans who left Africa to colonize the rest of the world appears to have been relatively low (Gabriel et al. 2002). In contrast, populations that have undergone dramatic size reductions or rapid expansions in the past and populations formed by the mixture of previously separate ancestral groups can have unusually high levels of linkage disequilibrium (Nordborg and Tavare 2002).

http://en.wikipedia....netic_variation

The first point you made is true. Africa has the maximum genetic diversity currently i.e today in the world according to the study you stated.The diversity can be explained by events happening in relatively recent known history.No need to extrapolate it to the times when humans evolved.

The second point regarding skull size variation,is a retarded suggestion as what does skull size have to do with distance from Africa? lol....this is a stupid argument that our ancestors had a bigger skull and the farther they moved from Africa the skull size decreased lol.....this sort of evidence hardly helps. It can also be conversely argued that people with smaller skulls moved towards Africa from all parts of the world and their skull sizes started increasing as they started becoming more intelligent with bigger brain sizes due to evolution

The third point shoots the out of africa theory in the foot, as on one side it is claimed that the modern i.e.current population in Africa shows lesser linkage disequilibrium which wouldn't be the case if people migrated out of Africa in large droves which would be necessary for evolution to have acted substantially on these migrating population. lol

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

If you don't understand, please say so.

Not skull size, but:

variations in skull measurements decrease with distance from Africa

Plus:

Africa contains the most human genetic diversity anywhere on Earth, and the genetic structure of Africans traces to 14 ancestral population clusters that correlate with ethnicity and culture or language.

.

Edited by Abramelin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't understand, please say so.

I wanted to understand what you meant by it.

After your response it is clear to me what you meant,though you quoted wiki.So i responded accordingly.

Also:

But genetic data will have to interpreted in the right context for it to be translated to actual historical data. For eg- i cannot claim that a particular gene 'originated' in a particular geographical location because i found it in old mummies found in those locations(all i can assert is that this particular gene was found in this location in this particular time period), similarly i cannot comment on the origins of a particular gene based on current genetic data alone i.e i cannot say that since majority of people in a particular region have a gene means that the gene originated there. So use of genetic data in the historical context has to be along with archaeological and cultural proof to make a strong case.

You cannot extrapolate results of current studies of genetic diversity in Africa to the times Humans evolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The third point shoots the out of africa theory in the foot, as on one side it is claimed that the modern i.e.current population in Africa shows lesser linkage disequilibrium which wouldn't be the case if people migrated out of Africa in large droves which would be necessary for evolution to have acted substantially on these migrating population. lol

But the quote says people DID NOT move out of Africa in large droves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wanted to understand what you meant by it.

After your response it is clear to me what you meant,though you quoted wiki.So i responded accordingly.

Also:

But genetic data will have to interpreted in the right context for it to be translated to actual historical data. For eg- i cannot claim that a particular gene 'originated' in a particular geographical location because i found it in old mummies found in those locations(all i can assert is that this particular gene was found in this location in this particular time period), similarly i cannot comment on the origins of a particular gene based on current genetic data alone i.e i cannot say that since majority of people in a particular region have a gene means that the gene originated there. So use of genetic data in the historical context has to be along with archaeological and cultural proof to make a strong case.

You cannot extrapolate results of current studies of genetic diversity in Africa to the times Humans evolved.

A Wiki page is as good as its references. Maybe you should check them.

-

Do you have an alternative explanation for the high genetic diversity of Africans other than Africa being the ancestral homeland of humanity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Wiki page is as good as its references. Maybe you should check them.

-

Do you have an alternative explanation for the high genetic diversity of Africans other than Africa being the ancestral homeland of humanity?

Well, what i deeply suspect is that he is trying to link it with his pet Out of India Theory to an extent to state that Hominids and Modern Humans evolved, migrated out of India to other places, and to africa also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Wiki page is as good as its references. Maybe you should check them.

-

Do you have an alternative explanation for the high genetic diversity of Africans other than Africa being the ancestral homeland of humanity?

Like is said twice before the current observable genetic diversity in Africa can be explained by events known in relatively recent history,also the genetic diversity will depend on frequency of interbreeding and who among us can provide an accurate rate of interbreeding? why would you want to extrapolate the current genetic data to be valid at the time when Humans evolved.

So many European and Asian people during the course of known history have been either residing or occupying parts of Africa in the last say 5000-6000 years.That caused the genetic diversity you currently observe in Africa,no need to attribute it to the origin of modern humans in Africa. It's like saying that since today so many Caucasian are found in south Africa means they evolved there.lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Well, what i deeply suspect is that he is trying to link it with his pet Out of India Theory to an extent to state that Hominids and Modern Humans evolved, migrated out of India to other places, and to africa also.

And what is that theory based on??

Not on what was discovered.

Early Humans Settled India Before Europe, Study Suggests

November 14, 2005

(...)

The Indian subcontinent was once home to Homo heidelbergensis, a hominid species that left Africa about 800,000 years ago, Petraglia explained.

"I realized that, my god, modern humans might have wiped out Homo heidelbergensis in India," he said. "Modern humans may have been responsible for wiping out all sorts of ancestors around the world."

"Our model of India is talking about that entire wave of dispersal," he added. "[T]hat's a huge implication for paleoanthropology and human evolution."

A New Model

Petraglia and James reached their conclusions by pulling together fossils, artifacts, and genetic data.

The evidence points to an early human migration through the Middle East and into India, arriving in Australia by 45,000 to 60,000 years ago, they say.

(...)

The modern humans who colonized India may also have been responsible for the disappearance of the so-called Hobbits, whose fossilized bones were discovered recently on the Indonesian island of Flores.

But Athreya of Texas A&M argues that the evidence for such a "replacement event" in India remains weak.

"You have to explain the reasons for the replacement, [such as] technical superiority," she said.

"The genetic evidence shows there were multiple migrations out of Africa, so there would have been multiple migrations into [india]. But I think these migrating populations didn't completely replace the indigenous group."

(...)

The subcontinent has produced just one set of early Homo sapiens fossils, found in a cave in Sri Lanka and dated to about 36,000 years ago.

Despite this, Petraglia hopes his analysis throws new light onto early human history in India.

http://news.national...1114_india.html

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like is said twice before the current observable genetic diversity in Africa can be explained by events known in relatively recent history,also the genetic diversity will depend on frequency of interbreeding and who among us can provide an accurate rate of interbreeding? why would you want to extrapolate the current genetic data to be valid at the time when Humans evolved.

So many European and Asian people during the course of known history have been either residing or occupying parts of Africa in the last say 5000-6000 years.That caused the genetic diversity you currently observe in Africa,no need to attribute it to the origin of modern humans in Africa. It's like saying that since today so many Caucasian are found in south Africa means they evolved there.lol

if people migrated to and fro, why is the genetic diversity not everywhere around Africa as high as in Africa itself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, what i deeply suspect is that he is trying to link it with his pet Out of India Theory to an extent to state that Hominids and Modern Humans evolved, migrated out of India to other places, and to africa also.

OMG...pet out of India theory?? Out of India is in reference to spread of Vedic civilization from India to different parts of the world and is the converse of the Aryan invasion/migration theory where Vedic culture and civilization is brought to India from outside by a bunch called the Aryans.

Out of Africa is in relation to geographic location where modern homo sapiens evolved if they evolved (as suggested by Darwin and his bunch).

The alternative to Out of Africa is the theory of Multi regionalism where it is stated that modern humans evolved from ancestors separately in different parts of the world and the primitive ancestors had already dispersed to regions in Asia,Europe and Africa and that is the reason we see so much variations in humans from different regions.

A lot is not known to us regarding how modern humans evolved,or did the evolve as suggested by current evolutionists so it gets very difficult to then state that we evolved in Africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

OMG...pet out of India theory?? Out of India is in reference to spread of Vedic civilization from India to different parts of the world and is the converse of the Aryan invasion/migration theory where Vedic culture and civilization is brought to India from outside by a bunch called the Aryans.

Out of Africa is in relation to geographic location where modern homo sapiens evolved if they evolved (as suggested by Darwin and his bunch).

The alternative to Out of Africa is the theory of Multi regionalism where it is stated that modern humans evolved from ancestors separately in different parts of the world and the primitive ancestors had already dispersed to regions in Asia,Europe and Africa and that is the reason we see so much variations in humans from different regions.

A lot is not known to us regarding how modern humans evolved,or did the evolve as suggested by current evolutionists so it gets very difficult to then state that we evolved in Africa.

Are you also suggesting that primitive ancestors left Africa, did a bit of local mutating to evolve into modern humans, and then - mutated and all - they all went back to Africa, causing a high genetic diversity?

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you also suggesting that primitive ancestors left Africa, did a bit of local mutating to evolve into modern humans, and then - mutated and all - they all went back to Africa, causing a high genetic diversity?

.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"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."

5 Signs Humans Are Still Evolving

http://mentalfloss.c...-still-evolving

In more detail:

http://www.pbs.org/w...l-evolving.html

==

Why would all these different people go to Africa, and not - let's say - to India, SE Asia or Europe?

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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."

Ever heard of Göbekli Tepe?

11,000+ years old. And I don't think it just fell out of the sky. Many similar aged places have been found in Anatolia (Karahan Tepe, and lots more/ I have posted quite a lot about them).

http://arheologija.ff.uni-lj.si/documenta/pdf38/38_19.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"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."

5 Signs Humans Are Still Evolving

http://mentalfloss.c...-still-evolving

In more detail:

http://www.pbs.org/w...l-evolving.html

==

Why would all these different people go to Africa, and not - let's say - to India, SE Asia or Europe?

.

Once again they parade adaptation and variations as proof of evolution. Let me put it this way...why haven't we grown an extra limb or doubled our brain size?

The truth about the matter is that all the examples of evolution that are listed in the link were traits already present in Humans 50,000 years ago,nothing new has evolved only phenotypical frequency has changed which cannot be termed as evolution.Why haven't people living in subzero temperatures started growing a thick coat of fur on their body and started hibernating for 6 month periods? now that would convince me.

Blue eyes,Lactose digestion,Brain size are not indications of evolution as they were present in Humans even 50,000 years ago.

Why would these different people go to Africa? is a million dollar question...though i can answer a part of it i.e mainly to dominate the local populace and steal their naturally abundant resources.......and the rest of these people you can ponder yourself why they went,all we know is they did go there as recorded in relatively modern history. Surely these people didn't migrate there because they thought that it was the origin of modern humans.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"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."

Ever heard of Göbekli Tepe?

11,000+ years old. And I don't think it just fell out of the sky. Many similar aged places have been found in Anatolia (Karahan Tepe, and lots more/ I have posted quite a lot about them).

http://arheologija.f...pdf38/38_19.pdf

Gobekli Tepe is not considered to be a civilization by the mainstream,even if you stop only at Tepe and 11,000 years back.....homo sapiens still had an idle time of 1,89,000 years according to evolutionists.

I am myself of the opinion that there were great lost civilizations in antiquity even before Gobekli Tepe and our currently accepted timeline of the evolution of homo sapien and civilization is wrong.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Once again they parade adaptation and variations as proof of evolution. Let me put it this way...why haven't we grown an extra limb or doubled our brain size?

The truth about the matter is that all the examples of evolution that are listed in the link were traits already present in Humans 50,000 years ago,nothing new has evolved only phenotypical frequency has changed which cannot be termed as evolution.Why haven't people living in subzero temperatures started growing a thick coat of fur on their body and started hibernating for 6 month periods? now that would convince me.

Blue eyes,Lactose digestion,Brain size are not indications of evolution as they were present in Humans even 50,000 years ago.

Why would these different people go to Africa? is a million dollar question...though i can answer a part of it i.e mainly to dominate the local populace and steal their naturally abundant resources.......and the rest of these people you can ponder yourself why they went,all we know is they did go there as recorded in relatively modern history. Surely these people didn't migrate there because they thought that it was the origin of modern humans.

You should read the second link.

-

People migrated to and fro all over the globe, but only in Africa we find the highest genetic diversity.

You still have not found an answer to that one.

People migrated all over Asia, back and forth, but the genetic diversity is nothing like that in Africa.

.

Edited by Abramelin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gobekli Tepe is not considered to be a civilization by the mainstream,even if you stop only at Tepe and 11,000 years back.....homo sapiens still had an idle time of 1,89,000 years according to evolutionists.

I am myself of the opinion that there were great lost civilizations in antiquity even before Gobekli Tepe and our currently accepted timeline of the evolution of homo sapien and civilization is wrong.

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its hard to tell much from skeletons, but homo sapiens had things homo erectus didn't have. We see that in its toolkit, which remained essentially unchanged for a couple of million years. Then homo sapiens came in with a new and changing toolkit, that seems to have been something not instinctive (and therefore very little change) but learned (and therefore improvable over time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

It wasn't me saying it but it is the mainstream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should read the second link.

-

People migrated to and fro all over the globe, but only in Africa we find the highest genetic diversity.

You still have not found an answer to that one.

People migrated all over Asia, back and forth, but the genetic diversity is nothing like that in Africa.

.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 5

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.