26
   

Does everyone agree that we evolved from Africa?

 
 
Amoh5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2016 03:04 am
@farmerjohn1324,
I saw the documentary on Youtube "Journey of Man" by Geneticist Dr. Spencer Wells. He said we came from the Koi San people in Africa who supposedly have the oldest human DNA.
I like the idea because it brings us together as one family. Our differences in appearances is only due to climate and food.
The only comment from Dr. Wells that I didn't like was the idea that we came from other primates or apes. I think all primates are unique and evolved independently. All this crossing over between one primate to another is crazy. Like they all experimented sexually among themselves or something like that, which doesn't make sense. Most species only mate with their own kind or likeness. These crossover fantasies are crazy(hahaha! I know what you're thinking, sounds hilarious alright)
I think humans are unique and we evolved independently...
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2016 04:14 am
Independently of what? When the religious kooks start babbling, they apparently lose all ability to think and write coherently.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2016 04:40 am
@Amoh5,
Quote:
I think humans are unique and we evolved independently..
What does the concept of "common ancestry" mean to you, anything?
Briancrc
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2016 05:21 am
@Amoh5,
Quote:
All this crossing over between one primate to another is crazy


You believe the argument is that a chimp got it on with an orangutan to produce a new kind of primate?
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2016 05:28 am
@Amoh5,
You really don't know sh*t about this subject, do you? Not that stumbling ignorance ever inhibited the god botherers.
0 Replies
 
spooky24
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2016 08:41 am
@farmerman,
Read 'Evolution: The Human story' By Dr. Alice Roberts- Perhaps the only Evolution professional that does not spend half the book as an alter to their own greatness.

Also, Evolution 'Trails from the past' by Cela-Conde, J. Ayala- Controversial text but extremely interesting.

Obviously I'm dealing with persons who have only a google education. They don't know or don't care to admit how google is politically edited to the far left(as far from religion as possible) and surprisingly, edited to the far right on some occasions.
For proof simply read the google version of WWII-As far right as possible. War crimes by the Red Army and the Wehrmacht are front page and carried on to the slightest detail-War crimes of America are just unfounded rumors.

For proof simply read the google version of The Vietnam war-As far left as possible. A far left bonanza of the sorry war effort and the evil forces in the American hierarchy in a stupid, unpopular war. Of course not one mention that the Far Left politics in Washington are the ones that started the damn war in the first place.
Anything read from google their bizarre political correctness needs to be taken in to account.

Java Man is not in the direct human line that for decades it was called 'the missing link'
Lucy is from many different bones that were found in the same area. Rib bones #3 and #4 are not from the same individual. Only someone chained to googles weirdness would not know this.
Bottom line is that at anytime a new discovery could change the entire book on evolution- so said evolution is based on 'available facts' and 'accepted facts'. A species that walked Africa for millions of years-Ardipithecus kadabba we have one very small bone to study. It's name means 'Basal family ancestor' and it is not related to afarensis at all. Now how can this be? It can be because we have not found enough remains to know for sure just where it belongs. A new discovery could happen tomorrow-and change evolution forever.

The study of evolution is not solid-it is liquid and it slouches because science has so little evidence to go by. You can bet the whole house that nothing challenging like this will ever be found on google.
THat is what you need to understand.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2016 09:58 am
@spooky24,
science only moves ahead as far as evidence allows. The rest? not so much. They achieve conclusions sans ANY evidence.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2016 10:51 am
@spooky24,
Quote spooky24:
Quote:
Java Man is not in the direct human line that for decades it was called 'the missing link'

Of course not. I mentioned this fact in two previous posts which you tried to refute. The ancestors of Homo Erectus left Africa and went to the Middle East and Europe. They evolved somewhat, but they never evolved into Homo Sapiens. Homo Sapiens later left Africa fully formed in two great waves, the first 65,000 years ago and the largest, 45,000 years ago, when the Sahara was cooler and wetter and game animals went there.

You mentioned Alice Roberts previously. Here is a video made from a documentary by Alice Roberts about the work of Jin Li, a famous geneticist hired by the Chinese government specifically to disprove the Out-Of-Africa Theory and he ended up proving it correct instead. Taking the DNA of over 12,000 men from all over East Asia, every single one had a genetic marker that originated in Africa 80,000 years ago. This proves that the East Asians originated in Africa and sometime after 80,000 years ago left Africa and came to East Asia. Check out the video:

Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2016 01:15 pm
@spooky24,
Quote:
They don't know or don't care to admit how google is politically edited to the far left(as far from religion as possible) and surprisingly, edited to the far right on some occasions.
I've noticed the same thing, same story at Wikipedia. Both are awesome resources that I use a lot but you can only start investigations there, not end them.
Blickers
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2016 02:06 pm
@Blickers,
Oops. In my post above, I wrote: "The ancestors of Homo Erectus left Africa and went to the Middle East and Europe. " Sorry, it should read, "The ancestors of Homo Erectus left Africa and went to the Middle East and Asia".
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2016 02:13 pm
@Leadfoot,
yeh those damned differential equations always solve to the left.
Leadfoot
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2016 02:16 pm
@farmerman,
Yeah, kinda like that 'Creationist math equation' that Parados caught me using :-)
0 Replies
 
Amoh5
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2016 05:40 pm
@farmerman,
Common ancestry? That depends how far back you are going, it could also apply to a time when primates evolved from out of the sea. I agree with the term primate as in "tree dwellers with grasping hands etc " which would have been an ideal refuge from carnivores if a primate did not have any technological defences to be able to roam around on the ground safely. I'm just saying that the phrase "came from other primates or apes" implies we are not unique. Therefore, which primate is unique? Can any primate be classed as unique?
0 Replies
 
Amoh5
 
  0  
Reply Thu 3 Mar, 2016 05:47 pm
@Briancrc,
No, I mean because there is the assumption that humans are not unique. Therefore they must be implying some sort of hybrid(interbreeding) activity somewhere in the distant past of primates...
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2016 02:48 am
What difference does it make if humans are "unique" or not? Unless of course, someone wants to assert a special relationship with their imaginary friend who lives away off in the sky.
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2016 09:24 am
@Amoh5,
I don't get what you mean by "unique". Every species is unique in some way. Every primate today grew out of some population of other primates which separated themselves for some reason and started breeding among themselves mostly or solely, until they became a different species. The original population of primates they grew out of might or might not still be around.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2016 10:16 am
@Blickers,
Quote:
I don't get what you mean by "unique"
Not sure what Amoh means but the ability to engage in discussions like this makes us unique.
Blickers
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2016 10:33 am
@Leadfoot,
On computers, yes. But those only came around the last few decades.
In the pre-mass communication era, which is most of Homo Sapien history, we probably were the best at communicating, but by how much is open to question. It should be noted that Neanderthals invented some useful things that Homo Sapiens did not, and that would imply some kind of communication was going on. For instance, Neanderthals seemed to have invented a form of birch pitch glue for affixing the stone points of their thrusting spears to the wooden shafts, among other useful things. When finding this substance, the researchers conducted experiments on how to manufacture it in the lab with no success. They finally had to turn to the Northeast Native Americans to find the method, which involves heating the birch sap and then burying it in earthen pans to prevent oxidation. We don't know if the Northeast Native Americans invented this independently or if this knowledge is left over from when their ancestors encountered the Neanderthals before crossing over to North America, but the fact is that Neanderthals had this extremely effective birch pitch glue and the Homo Sapiens who came immediately after did not.

Then there is the bear bone flute that was found in a Neanderthal settlement. They found only one so far. It is a bear bone with holes apparently drilled in a mathematical relationship which functions as a flue. No Homo Sapiens flutes were found in the same time period, so it looks like the Neanderthals invented the first flute. Making inventions would require some kind of sophisticated communication. However, other evidence exists that Homo Sapiens were more communicative than Neanderthals, but it seems to be a a matter of degree more than of kind. So how unique Homo Sapiens are with conversation is conjecture.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2016 10:45 am
@Blickers,
I was thinking more about content than method.

Interesting about that flute. Do you happen to know if it was tuned to the conventional 12 note chromatic scale with A at 440 Hz?
Blickers
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Mar, 2016 11:57 am
@Leadfoot,
LOL, it had two unharmed holes and two other holes that appear to be chewed through later. The centers of the four holes line up to a diatonic scale. The width and depth of holes correspond to how a flute hole should be bored. Researchers are presently split over whether the holes were man made or chewed through by some animal. Not experienced in these questions, but I must admit those holes look awfully round and perfect for bite marks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divje_Babe_Flute#/media/File:Fl%C3%BBte_pal%C3%A9olithique_%28mus%C3%A9e_national_de_Slov%C3%A9nie,_Ljubljana%29_%289420310527%29.jpg
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/11/2020 at 07:48:42