- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 8/21/18 at 9:03 pm to fr33manator
Not trying to be a dick but have had that talk a bunch of times and it turned out like that.
Posted on 8/21/18 at 9:04 pm to OweO
My lord, where did you hear this?
Posted on 8/21/18 at 9:04 pm to Bushmaster
Damn.
Posted on 8/21/18 at 9:09 pm to OweO
Do they teach this in special/handicapped school?
Posted on 8/21/18 at 9:21 pm to fr33manator
You realize the studies themselves don't say that right? There is a long line between Graecopithecus and Homo species, some 5 million years worth of fossil data would have to link the ancestors of Graecopithecus to the Homo genus. All we know is that Graecopithecus is distinct from African hominids, and there certainly hasn't been the contention made by anyone in the scientific community, even in the two papers that discuss Graecopithecus, that anatomically modern humans came from anywhere other than Africa. The fossil data supports the Out-of-Africa hypothesis by an overwhelming degree. If I recall, there is around 250,000 years between anatomically modern human fossils found in Europe and Africa.
This post was edited on 8/21/18 at 9:25 pm
Posted on 8/21/18 at 9:23 pm to OWLFAN86
quote:
for fricks sake with all your free time cant you read or something
Anatomically modern humans originated in Africa.
Posted on 8/21/18 at 9:23 pm to jennyjones
quote:
23 and me is telling me I’m .5% sub Saharan African
My DNA test came back 5% west African and I’m pretty stoked.
Posted on 8/21/18 at 9:26 pm to crazy4lsu
Is there even enough fossil data to be confident in any theory?
Posted on 8/21/18 at 9:34 pm to biglego
quote:
Is there even enough fossil data to be confident in any theory?
The weight of the data we have tends toward one direction. People didn't even read the two Graecopithecus papers and just ran with the idea that they were the missing link disproving the out-of-Africa hypothesis, ignoring the fossil evidence within the Homo genus itself. The Late Miocene featured a large amount of hominid radiation, and we will most certainly find new fossils that are distinct from hominids both in Europe, West Asia, and Africa, and we will probably discover them in places we didn't expect. The data that we have supports one conclusion. If we suggest that perhaps Graecopithecus, along with Ouranopithecus, Sahelanthropus tacadensis and Orrorin tugenensis, are the most likely candidates for the last common ancestor between humans and chimpanzees, then there might be an argument there. But that's not the argument people are making.
Posted on 8/21/18 at 9:40 pm to tigerskin
quote:
My son is learning this in school and I don’t remember being taught about that. How long have we known this?
The fossil data suggests that this is the case yes. The people linking the Graceopithecus papers don't understand what they are linking. Those papers do not suggest what people think they suggest. The fossil evidence suggests the out-of-Africa hypothesis, as does the genetic evidence, with most non-African populations descending from the L3 haplogroup, while there are six distinct L haplogroups within Africa itself.
Relative to the other theories, the evidence for the out-of-Africa theory is overwhelming. Anatomically modern humans most likely originated out of East Africa, south of the Nile River Valley, around 350,000 years ago, distinct from other Homo species that existed at the time, and whom anatomically modern humans out-competed.
This post was edited on 8/21/18 at 9:48 pm
Posted on 8/21/18 at 9:44 pm to tigerskin
I mean, sort of
The generally believed theory is that the first people to migrate were from Africa, they then preceded to spread throughout the world. Of course it's possible they met and produced offspring from other peoples that were somewhere else.
But yea, if he's learning that the first people probably cam from Africa, that's basically correct
The generally believed theory is that the first people to migrate were from Africa, they then preceded to spread throughout the world. Of course it's possible they met and produced offspring from other peoples that were somewhere else.
But yea, if he's learning that the first people probably cam from Africa, that's basically correct
Posted on 8/21/18 at 9:47 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
The fossil evidence suggests the out-of-Africa hypothesis, as does the genetic evidence, with most non-African populations descending from the L3 haplogroup, while there are six distinct L haplogroups within Africa itself.
Works for me.
Posted on 8/21/18 at 9:51 pm to Tiger1242
quote:
Of course it's possible they met and produced offspring from other peoples that were somewhere else.
We already know the Neanderthals were in Europe. It isn’t outside the realm of likeliness that there were other steps in our evolution that we just haven’t discovered yet.
Posted on 8/21/18 at 9:53 pm to fr33manator
quote:
We already know the Neanderthals were in Europe. It isn’t outside the realm of likeliness that there were other steps in our evolution that we just haven’t discovered yet.
For sure, I think it more likely that further steps discovered make it more clear that at least the beginnings of "Humans" were in Africa.
I'm not sure why it matters?
Posted on 8/21/18 at 9:55 pm to biglego
It's immensely frustrating to read responses in this thread that have suddenly decided that one tooth of Graceopithecus found in the Thracian basin can outweigh all the evidence we have for the African hypothesis.
The archeogenetics strongly favors the African hypothesis, as all non-Africans possess DNA which has either Neanderthal, Denisovan, or another ancient human species (which is yet to be discovered), which means that interbreeding occurred post-migration. The degree to which this difference results in phenotypic differences is still fairly small, as humans are still fairly closely related.
The archeogenetics strongly favors the African hypothesis, as all non-Africans possess DNA which has either Neanderthal, Denisovan, or another ancient human species (which is yet to be discovered), which means that interbreeding occurred post-migration. The degree to which this difference results in phenotypic differences is still fairly small, as humans are still fairly closely related.
Posted on 8/21/18 at 10:00 pm to fr33manator
quote:
We already know the Neanderthals were in Europe. It isn’t outside the realm of likeliness that there were other steps in our evolution that we just haven’t discovered yet.
None of this discounts the out-of-Africa hypothesis though. The genetic evidence, which I've already laid out in two posts, suggests anatomically modern humans, who were from East Africa, out-competed Neanderthals and Denisovans, and even in the genetic variety we do see, we don't know for sure if the overlap between the three human subspecies (of course, there was a fourth of which we have no fossil evidence), is due to inbreeding or evidence of a common ancestor. In all likelihood, it is due to both.
Early Homo history is fairly well delineated due to the genetic work that has been done, especially through mitochondrial DNA (of which we have no Neanderthal DNA, which suggests that human male-neanderthal female pairings led to infertile offspring). There are numerous other genetic examples which point to the out-of-Africa hypothesis as well.
Posted on 8/21/18 at 10:02 pm to Tiger1242
quote:
I'm not sure why it matters?
I'm not sure either, or why people have run with Graecopithecus the way they have. It's supremely odd. The evidence for the out-of-Africa hypothesis is so overwhelming that I'm amazed this thread got this far with people spewing such ignorant ideas. I honestly don't understand it.
Posted on 8/21/18 at 10:07 pm to crazy4lsu
I’m not discounting that an important ancestor came out of Africa. Although I do take issue with some of the modern teaching methods that seem to be far more Afrocentric than is warranted. I’ve seen some teachers presenting it as Africans evolved fully and everyone else is some sort of mutant.
Presented scientifically it has merit but that’s not the way it’s being taught always.
Presented scientifically it has merit but that’s not the way it’s being taught always.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News