Does everyone agree that we evolved from Africa?

I do that all the time, especially when the source can offer no scientific or factual rebuttal but only a dismissal based on who is talking rather than what they are saying.

Since you like Wiki so much, here is what they have to say about your argument:



Ad Hominem is all you bring to the table.

Yeah, Leddy, and, furthermore, here the "source" is not some "institute" to begin with. The author of this article has a PhD degree in molecular biology from UC Berkeley. He is not some fictitious "institute."

And his article merely cites other acknowledged authorities, such as paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersal; Emory University archaeologist Jessica Thompson; Yale paleoanthropologist Misia Landau; and articles published in scientific books/journals or in major newspapers (the Guardian) which elaborate on the implications of recent findings.

If you want to go ad hom, and attack the author of an article, one would think that you could at least, however fallaciously, attack the actual author, rather than an institutional strawman.

Here logical fallacies are just stacked on top of one another, all in a transparent attempt to "discredit" an article without addressing a single word of its substance.

Nice try, cheese-eater.

Yep, that was the giveaway that he was going ad hom. He didn't even bother to read the post content or the even the stuff that he quoted.

Snide accusations about what someone considers a reliable source and false accusations of logical fallacies fit right in nicely with with your rhetorical style. The comment from the Discovery Institute stooge publication was irrelevant, and crypto-religiously tendentious. You've pulled that kind of crap since you showed up here. I'm not surprised, however, to see that Lameman is your new girl friend.

Where did you come from (the stars . protein, shrews, africa)

Where did you go ( terra, the moon, mars, the stars)

Where did you come from cotton eye joe.

A study was done, which, unfortunately I haven't been able to readily locate, then followed a singe genetic marker, male. It was able to follow it while determining chronological order by studying changes to the marker, from central Africa through the Middle East and the Saudi Peninsula. They did not follow the branch that went towards Europe, but tracked it East and North through Turkey, Pakistan, India, Mongolia, and into Southeast Asia. The 'newest' that they found was down the chain of Indonesia to Australia and New Zealand. I with that the study had continued through Siberia and into Alaska.

I am recalling this information from a few years ago. So, my recall, especially at my age, may not be perfect.....Oh look, a shiny object.

I think you were replying to my post about some Native Americans possibly coming straight from Polynesia, not over the Bering Bridge or Beringia. https://able2know.org/topic/271486-4#post-6147027

Since the genetic marker you referred to was not followed up to Northeast Asia and over to Alaska, the subject can still be up in the air. KonTiki proved the voyage was theoretically possible, whether the trip was made directly from Polynesia to the New World, or by the Asian ancestors of the Polynesians moving up to Northeast Asia and then over the Bering Bridge, is another story.

Here's a map with the "hotspots" of Denisovan heritage around the world. Notice how there seems to be a bunching around Mesoamerica and South America around the Amazon basin. Why there?

Well, I certainly agree but I doubt everyone agrees for the sake of statistical variation...

Ya know, the concept of "missing links" and "straightforward ladder-like evolution " of humans has long been dismissed. What you miss in the quotes by Eldredge is that they claim that we would probably never understand the complexities of how evolution is displayed by the use of fossils as the only means of determining phylogenetic relationships from which we conclude ancestry.

It nicely harkens back to one of Mayr's keen observations that(and I paraphrase)

We can pretty accurately claim that the phylogenetic type section (the location of a species origin) is always within the geographic area where the most of the varied fossils of the supersedious genera are found.

Im always amazed at how some interested folks can passively accept that all the 10' s of thousands of trilobite species were going somewhere evolution-wise yet we seem to be puzzled at how the "ancient" Homo sp fossils all seem to lie upon a line that stretches both geographically and temporally from the Horn of Africa(Herto) to the Blombo in S africa,( where both the Taung and Blombo sites lie on the line )Which also contains the H. naledi cavern site.Its a 2 million year old stratigrqphic"line" about as long as the continental US (if we add the entire length of the Aleutian Islands to the line) . 99% of all the post- Pithecenes were found on this line (save the Java "man" specimen which Dubois tried to argue for an Asian homeland)

The fossil structures of all the Australopithecus and Homo can be grouped according to their structural features that are common according to the several hundred thousand years durations that include all these fossils.(eg H Rudolfensis and H habilis shared a common time and common skull and torso features that were primitive compared to later Homo and which were modified for larger brain cases of the later H antesessor and H ERgaster. By the time we reached 1 mya we hqve upwrds of at least 5 African species of Homo.(including sapiens) (Ive not included H neanderthlensis because H neander... lived from almost 1mya to well past the 50K K period and was an example of an earlier migration east and North (H ergastershoulda been called H shuffelensis). He was a walker . The species H georgiensis is most like H ergaster and occured a few tens of thousands of year later)

Weve got time lines of occurences of all these guys so doing any informed speculation on a chain of descent or evolutionary significance isnt a shot in the dark. As more and more fossils with good dates pop up, the fuzz clears up nicely.
Trouble is, New York Times "Science Tuesday"likes to simplify and just give you the shiny stuff and not the radiological and stratigraphic grunt work that, of necessity, continually goes on and provides the important boundaries of time for these critters.

That was so classic Satanta that it deserves repeating

The study did no research on the American Indians. My post was an explanation addressing the title of this thread. Factually, all information that we now possess supports the theory that modern humans originated on Africa.

While many seem to put all the emphasis on evolution, what about females and their mate selection? And, also the need to be lighter complected to not have children die of rickets? Meaning, once a small group mated with Neanderthals, and had babies that were lighter complected, female mate selection got homosapiens to the point where all males owned big cars or trucks.

That's all part of evolution.

Homo Sapiens in Europe didn't get their skin color or hair color from Neanderthals, they developed it on their own. They might have mated with Neanderthals, but the skin and hair was simply Homo Sapiens evolving to fit European climate conditions just like the Neanderthals did before them.

You are right, I guess. Dark complection brings little advantage in northern climates, and it must cost something to the metabolism. Therefore it disappeared progressively in populations not exposed to too much UV. There's speculation however that some Neanderthal genes could have proved useful for Sapiens' adaptation to cold, and that the red hair gene(s) are from them.

Okay, I just found an article that says nonAfricans did get some contribution to skin and hair from Neanderthals. Earlier, I read an article that said that hair color and skin color in Neanderthals were different alleles, which meant that humans developed them entirely on their own. So it seems to be somewhat up in the air.

To add to the confusion, there is at least one paper that says there is no evidence that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens EVER successfully mated, that the reason nonAfricans have some of the same genes as Neanderthals is that both Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals had a common ancestor, Homo Heidelbergensis, which a million to 700,000 years ago left Africa and moved into the Middle East and Europe. The Heidelbergensis who stayed in Africa-most of them-became Homo Sapiens. The Heidelbergensis who went into the Middle East and Europe eventually evolved into Neanderthals and Denisovans. Presumably, natural selection in the Homo Sapiens of 50,000 years ago who left Africa would promote the same leftover Heidelbergensis genes that they did in Neanderthals, who left 600 or 700 thousand years earlier. It's not a widely accepted paper, but it is published in a reputable journal and you read analysis of it from time to time as a possibility.

Nay...we evolved from a supernova!

More precisely, our African ancestors were progressively replaced by Homo sapiens. When a new species appears, usually in some particular place and time, the "mother" species does not automatically disappear. Competition between the two species leads (or not) to the disappearance of the mother species.

Random mutations do not come frequently enough to think that a random mutation for lighter skin came often enough so that a group could then populate the "out of Africa" group to the present day population in a comparatively short evolutionary time. And Neanderthals already had light skin to get vitamin D. They didn't all live by the sea to get vitamin D from fish oil. The more likely scenario is that mating with Neanderthal gave homosapiens enough of a starter group to give us our present population of homosapien/Neanderthal hybrids. Once the hybrid had Neanderthal's gene for lighter complexion, they mated other hybrids with the same "look." In effect, like Elvis said, "there was a whole lot of shaking going on."

There has been so much anti-Neanderthal rhetoric in the 20th century, only recently I've read articles that claim that Neanderthal did not just "grunt," but carried on conversations. However, their mode of hunting set them apart. They literally wrestled with large prey, and sustained wounds that homosapiens might have died from. The point is that I would believe that there are powers that be that would not want to offend the sensitivities of many, and therefore promulgate that homosapien has a "pedigree." It also falls in line with Judeo-Christian theology, since we were supposed to be made in the image of God, and God can't be a hybrid.