- 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
re: First human ancestors came from Europe not Africa 7.2 million-year-old fossils indicate
Posted on 5/23/17 at 5:20 pm to DawgfaninCa
Posted on 5/23/17 at 5:20 pm to DawgfaninCa
The land of whitey is the cradle of civilization.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 5:20 pm to PrimeTime Money
quote:
The land of whitey is the cradle of civilization.
You people are weird.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 5:21 pm to Green Chili Tiger
quote:
not Africa.
quote:
Sounds like this part is very important to you.
Why shouldn't it be important to me?
Posted on 5/23/17 at 5:22 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
Was that desert even there back then? I know much of that area used to be good land.
They know Egypt was in Africa and south along the Nile river very lush and green - part of the fertile crescent. Rainfall was like India monsoons.
There was some cataclysm 10,000 years ago.
This post was edited on 5/23/17 at 5:23 pm
Posted on 5/23/17 at 5:22 pm to Dave Worth
quote:
Just that millions of years ago the climate was very different in varied places.
Are you saying that Earth's climate can change naturally--not just by changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, sulfate aerosols, and soot?
Posted on 5/23/17 at 5:24 pm to TxTiger82
quote:
They say it wasn't a desert back then, but rather a forest. Anyways, this evidence doesn't dispel the Out of Africa theory, it merely suggests that our ancestors were in Europe much sooner than previously thought. Big difference.
There's two questions:
1) Are the dates accurate?
2) Is this fossil an ancestor of humans (homo sapiens sapiens)?
Point 1 will be easy to verify. Point two will take more research and review by a lot of experts.
I agree it doesn't necessarily disprove OOA. It depends on (mostly) the second question.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 5:26 pm to Hawkeye95
quote:
This is what is so awesome about science. They update their conclusions based on available evidence.
Which is why it's dangerous to claim "the science is settled".
Posted on 5/23/17 at 5:27 pm to EKG
quote:
Are you saying that Earth's climate can change naturally--not just by changes in greenhouse gas concentrations, sulfate aerosols, and soot?
Yep. I don't deny that climate change is happening today. I just don't know enough to say that it is or is not caused entirely or partially by man.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 5:28 pm to Dave Worth
I'm right there with you.
I was just being a passive-aggressive jackass.
I was just being a passive-aggressive jackass.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 5:29 pm to AUstar
quote:
2) Is this fossil an ancestor of humans (homo sapiens sapiens)?
I'm reading the paper but it seems what is remarkable about this fossil is that it is distinct from a Ouranopithecus macedoniensis as well as being distinct from chimpanzees, meaning that there is a possibility that this fossil represents an early hominid. It doesn't do anything to suggest that the H. erectus theory from East Africa is incorrect.
This post was edited on 5/23/17 at 5:30 pm
Posted on 5/23/17 at 5:32 pm to northshorebamaman
Some new studies suggest the Sahara Desert is at least 7 million years old.
LINK
LINK
quote:
The movement of tectonic plates that created the Mediterranean Sea and the Alps also sparked the drying of the Sahara some 7 million years ago, according to the latest computer simulations of Earth’s ancient climate.
Though North Africa is currently covered by the world’s largest non-polar desert, climate conditions in the region have not been constant there for the last several million years. Subtle changes in Earth’s tilt toward the sun periodically increase the amount of solar energy received by the Northern Hemisphere in summer, altering atmospheric currents and driving monsoon rains. North Africa also sees more precipitation when less of the planet’s water is locked up in ice. Such increases in moisture limit how far the Sahara can spread and can even spark times of a “green Sahara”, when the sparse desert is replaced by abundant lakes, plants and animals.
Before the great desert was born, North Africa had a moister, semiarid climate. A few lines of evidence, including ancient dune deposits found in Chad, had hinted that the arid Sahara may have existed at least 7 million years ago. But without a mechanism to explain how it emerged, few scientists thought that the desert we see today could really be that old. Instead, most scientists argue that the Sahara took shape just 2 to 3 million years ago. Terrestrial and marine evidence suggest that North Africa underwent a period of drying at that time, when the Northern Hemisphere started its most recent cycle of glaciation.
Now Zhongshi Zhang of the Bjerknes Centre for Climate Research in Bergen, Norway, and colleagues have run simulations of climate change in North Africa over the last 30 million years. Their simulations take into account changes in Earth’s orbital position, atmospheric chemistry and the ratio of land to ocean as driven by tectonic forces. The models shows that precipitation in North Africa declined by more than half about 7 million years ago, causing the region to dry out. But this effect could not be explained by changes in vegetation, Earth’s tilt or greenhouse gas concentrations—leaving tectonic action.
About 250 million years ago, a huge body of water called the Tethys Sea separated the supercontinents of Laurasia to the north and Gondwana to the south. As those supercontinents broke apart and shuffled around, the African plate collided with the Eurasian plate, birthing the Alps and the Himalayas but closing off the bulk of the Tethys Sea. As the plates kept moving, the sea continued to shrink, eventually diminishing into the Mediterranean.
What set off the aridification in Africa was the replacement of the western arm of the Tethys Sea with the Arabian Peninsula around 7 to 11 million years ago. Replacing water with land, which reflects less sunlight, altered the region’s precipitation patterns. This created the desert and heightened its sensitivity to changes in Earth’s tilt, the researchers conclude in a study published today in Nature.
The emergence of the Sahara 7 million years ago would have affected the plants and animals in the region—and possibly the early ancestors of human beings.
This post was edited on 5/23/17 at 5:56 pm
Posted on 5/23/17 at 5:34 pm to AUstar
quote:
1) Are the dates accurate?
The journal (PLOS One) is a good one. The data may even be posted online. At the very least, this article is transparent and peer-reviewed.
2) Is this fossil an ancestor of humans (homo sapiens sapiens)?[/quote]
That's what the article said, but that is probably based on a theoretical link, which could change with additional evidence.
quote:
It depends on (mostly) the second question.
Could be that the OOA theory is wrong. Could be that the timeline is pushed back and homonins left Africa earlier than we thought. I'm not an expert on this subject though.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 5:36 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
The idea that humans originated in sub-saharan africa and spread from there never made much sense to me. The sahara desert is nearly the size of the united states. No primitive people were crossing that desert to populate other lands. They would have been cooked and died.
That's because the Sahara Desert wasn't formed until about 7,000 years ago. Humans had long left Africa before then.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 5:37 pm to DawgfaninCa
quote:why would you start a thread title that says the opposite of this
But the fossilised hominim is not necessarily our earliest ancestor
Posted on 5/23/17 at 5:38 pm to DawgfaninCa
I've always wondered why intelligent humanoids/bipeds would choose an extremely hot climate like Africa over a lush place to live. This seems to make sense.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 5:39 pm to AUstar
quote:
1) Are the dates accurate?
Well I didn't see that they mentioned how they were dated. Potassium argon dating is relatively accurate, but its not absolutely perfect.
quote:
2) Is this fossil an ancestor of humans (homo sapiens sapiens)?
No, it is just an early hominin. So a human like creature. The family tree of hominins (and hominids) are really complex.
quote:
I agree it doesn't necessarily disprove OOA
It most certainly doesn't disprove OOA in any way shape or form. Australopithecines was form africa, as was homo erectus. And homo ergator.
Not to mention the oldest homo sapiens fossils were found in africa.
shite is complex, and we can't even comprehend of the time scales involved.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 5:39 pm to Iosh
Our origins as human beings are not on this planet, or at least are not the result of processes of this world.
george noory has made compelling arguments that aliens used primate dna to form humans.
george noory has made compelling arguments that aliens used primate dna to form humans.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 5:39 pm to DawgfaninCa
I thought science was settled?
Posted on 5/23/17 at 5:40 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
The sahara desert is nearly the size of the united states. No primitive people were crossing that desert to populate other lands. They would have been cooked and died.
Was it a desert that long ago?
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News