Does everyone agree that we evolved from Africa?

Listened to a great Monocle podcast on this last night.

Apparently, love of skulls was always a thing

http://www.newsweek.com/neolithic-skull-cult-gobekli-tepe-turkey-629740



http://www.archaeology.org/news/5700-170629-turkey-gobekli-tepe-carved-skulls

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/06/skulls-cult-turkey-archaeology-neolithic-gobekli/

Of course cockroaches have evolved... Just like everything else. What makes you think they haven't?

Quote Leadfoot:

You've gotten your info already. If the paleontologist quoted by the article admits there is room for doubt, then there is the real possibility that this skull is not a Homo Sapiens or will not be classified as such in the future. Or maybe it will be. Personally, I'm on record several times on A2K that Homo Sapiens might indeed be older than 195,000 years, that the Omo, Ethiopia remains were just the oldest that we knew of at the time. For one thing, there is the DNA results of the African American man from South Carolina who had a genetic inheritance that was not seen before. They tracked it down to Cameroon, and they found a tribe were that heritage was prominent, but not universal. Leading researchers to conclude that either the ancestors of the Cameroon tribe mated with a different species that was still quite close genetically to Homo Sapiens, (before Paabo there was doubt that Homo Sapiens could even produce fertile offspring with Neanderthals, and for that matter there still is among some researchers), or that they mated with a band of Homo Sapiens that died out.

Then there is the matter of Homo Heidelbergensis, which for awhile was classified as archaic Homo Sapiens and then was referred to as "the muddle in the middle", in that he had a combination of modern features and archaic features. Now this skull has somewhat more modern features but still retains a lot of archaic ones. Therefore, it is safe to conclude that this is not necessarily a Homo Sapiens.

you might want to take a listen to an interview with Dr. Brooks. There is tone to "some people might still consider"

And unlearn :-)

Actually, I agree with you, not only about this example in Morocco, but others as well. If I were the one to make the call, I would base the criterion for Homo sapiens on behavior, not bones.

And then there is that silly statement about their brains being drastically different than 'ours'. OK, their brains were shaped to fit the different shaped skull but that is ALL they know about it. That tells us nothing.

The oldest piece of artwork found is around 40k yrs. old. That to me is a primary marker of self awareness, which is the only sensible definition of Homo sapiens as we understand it.

If they don't act like Homo Sapiens, they aren't.

new learning could be called unlearning if you were so inclined

Because cockroaches that old (found preserved in Amber) are indistinguishable from cockroaches today.

http://guides.library.harvard.edu/c.php?g=310507&p=2072128

Same thing is true about the horseshoe crab.

That would surprise me a lot. But even if that's a fact, it doesn't mean their metabolism, embroyogenesis and genetics have not evolved. I read somewhere that flat worms' vulvas had evolved through time not in terms of their physical shape but in the number of cells necessary to produce that organ, which reduced over time. The nematods's anatomy remained the same but they evolved towards greater and greater economy of means to produce organs.

Given a timescale of hundreds of millions to a billion years, I'd buy that.

Nope. The oldest known smileys were made 175,000 years ago by Neanderthal.


https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/may/25/neanderthals-built-mysterious-cave-structures-175000-years-ago

Calling a pile of stalactites 'art' is a streatch.

They form a pattern though.

http://evoandproud.blogspot.ca/2017/09/tales-from-old-bones.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hofmeyr_Skull

http://www.newsweek.com/archaeology-skull-evolution-homo-sapiens-homo-erectus-human-710973

Hey Pamela, I find it interesting when watching a video like the one you recently posted, I question whether these people are interpreting the evidence properly.

Kind of like watching a video of a bunch of Jehovah witness people who have there interpretations of the exact same evidence/scriptures other people have.

Same evidence different view.

Take this guy for example,Michael cremo, he believes human beings are Billiins of years old.
http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/anomalous.htm

We also know that there are genetic barriers. (As taught in Genesis, Like the cat kind or dog kind).
We know that DNA sequences can only be rearranged, and increases in DNA complexity has never been observed! This is crucial considering if evolutionism were to be true, we should see and observe countless increases in DNA right?(although evolutionism teaches this, it really is completely myth, and to be taken on blind faith by ppl who embrace evolutuonism)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Quote:
''if evolutionism were to be true, we should see and observe countless increases in DNA right?''



'rearrangementionism' sounds better ?

I know I didn't evolve.i didn't come from no ape. which is not proven,just theory.my gut feeling is something that no one thought of yet ,or mabey a left feild ,way of thought ,ex acient aliens ,brought us or somehow did something to start us,poly on africa.cause .pyrimids ...Hieroglyphics ,all over world with ALOT of stuff that could lead a man to half way ponder that.Sumerian tablets???some stuff on those are life changing.anyway ,that's my take sir.sorry about grammer.on phone ,hard to see the letters

My high school science class covered evolution in about fifteen minutes. Teach read a passage out of the book, which encompassed most of one page. As he closed the topic, one student said, "I didn't come from no monkey." We moved on to something else and our tests ignored evolution. I didn't understand then why people were so ignorant, but have come to see it is a visceral thing, fortified by sternness in myth-telling and societal pressure. The ignorant don't want to know.