When did we become human?

[csbrown28]

Again, gravity is a proven theory. Proven in practice.

Out of Africa is just a theory. Unproven and so far, it seems it is unprovable. The DNA tracing doesn't mean that we all have a common place where we migrated from, it just means we have a common ancestor.. .or a common ancestry, and that is true.

So is evolution "just a theory"? How about anthropogenic climate change?

 

[Rainman05]

So is evolution "just a theory"? How about anthropogenic climate change?

Yes, evolution is just a theory. It is a very good theory, a very likely theory, but it is a theory. However, I am not denying evolution over 2mil years, from one homini to another. I am simply stating that the more likely course of human evolution and hence, how we populated the Earth, was through multi-regional development, and not, out of africa theory on human migration.

Nice try building a strawman boy. Learn a bit more will you.

We are not discussing climate here.

 

[notquiteright]

He he, that's not really the case now is it. the whole DNA thing proves just that we are a homo sapiens and we all have a common ancesntry. it doesn't mean that we all evolved from Africans. We all have 99.8% shared DNA but that doesn't mean we are all 99.8% africans, it means we are all 99.8% of the same species, and the 0.2% makes up our race.

There is no way to trace back DNA as it were. To see when some mutation occured. It could have occured 1000 years ago, 10k years ago, or 200k years ago as we all evolved in different areas of the world into homo sapiens, replacing our ancestors. That is the common ancestor, homo heidelbergensis. We do not know how much DNA we have in common, homo sapiens, with homo heidelbergensis. Because again, we can't backtrack DNA. We know Europeans and some Asians have up to 4% of the different DNA make-up from other races from neanderthals because we can see that by comparing modern day races, and hence, by connecting the dots, we draw a logical conclusion. There is no way to prove it 100% but it is sufficiently logical to pass mustard. Something out of africa theory isn't.

So DNA in fact only serves to promote multiregional development, not to deny it

Well if you wish to assign a Continent to our ancestry then yes we are 99.8% African. Actually there are ways to trace DNA we have traced DNA some back as far as 330,000 years ago. Where it occurred and the climate in which it occurred tells us a great deal. The ancestor you cite heidelbergensis came from Africa first, not Europe, isolation in Europe allowed for genetic variation.

No peer reviewed published research gives a recent date for the variations, more along the lines of hundreds of thousands of years ago depending on the variation under discussion.

Climate does factor into this, from reaction to survivability in the various climates to blocking/facilitating the movements. early man didn't leave africa for europe first as the climate was very hostile and there was a ariable landbridge heading east. The DNA of aboriginal Australians has much more in common with Africa than with Europeans because Europeans came from splitting tribes that walked north into the Steppes and then 'back' to Europe in a much longer trip. climate and natural mutation did alter Europeans but they are more like modified Africans than 'new' models.

What comparing modern day man to any past 'man' is that race is less than 1% of our genetic makeup.

I can understand some not wanting to be 'african' just like some shudder at the concept of descending from monkeys.

 

[Rainman05]

Well if you wish to assign a Continent to our ancestry then yes we are 99.8% African. Actually there are ways to trace DNA we have traced DNA some back as far as 330,000 years ago. Where it occurred and the climate in which it occurred tells us a great deal. The ancestor you cite heidelbergensis came from Africa first, not Europe, isolation in Europe allowed for genetic variation.

No peer reviewed published research gives a recent date for the variations, more along the lines of hundreds of thousands of years ago depending on the variation under discussion.

Climate does factor into this, from reaction to survivability in the various climates to blocking/facilitating the movements. early man didn't leave africa for europe first as the climate was very hostile and there was a ariable landbridge heading east. The DNA of aboriginal Australians has much more in common with Africa than with Europeans because Europeans came from splitting tribes that walked north into the Steppes and then 'back' to Europe in a much longer trip. climate and natural mutation did alter Europeans but they are more like modified Africans than 'new' models.

What comparing modern day man to any past 'man' is that race is less than 1% of our genetic makeup.

I can understand some not wanting to be 'african' just like some shudder at the concept of descending from monkeys.

Absolutely not. We are 99.8% homo sapiens. The 0.2% is what makes us our distinctive races.

you don't understand. 330k years ago there was just heilderbensis, not homo sapiens. And the ancestor, heidelbergensis, may have came from... wherever. There are bones of him everywhere in the world. Not just in Africa. So no, saying that it came from Africa is false. You cannot prove it. It existed for hundred of thousand of years everywhere in the world, and in some places it evolved into some other homini species that died out until it evolved into us, homo sapiens, the best.

It is not about not wanting to be african. It is a fallacy to describe it as such. Very simple. Your entire phrase, the green one, textbook out of africa arguments and even those with a bit of a flaw, which again, I don't buy into that. People who are dedicated to this profession have looked at the evidence found regarding humanity's past and came up with several theories. Just because you choose to stick to the herd and accept the most popular one, which you don't fully understand to be precise, because you don't understand what homo sapiens are, fine. Stick to it. I believe the multiregional development one because it makes more logical sense.

And no, we didn't come from monkeys. That is another stupid thing that stupid people say all the time. Primates and homini species have a common ancestor 2mil+ years ago. But we are the result of one branch... while "monkeys" are the result of another branch. And the difference between our branches is closest between humans and chimpanzees, 3%. But we didn't evolve from monkeys. A monkey will never evolve into a human being because the path it is on won't go that way.

 

[csbrown28]

It is a very good theory, a very likely theory, but it is a theory.

So just to clarify, because all of this may be just a misunderstanding....

Is there anything higher in the order of knowledge then a scientific theory?

 

[Rainman05]

So just to clarify, because all of this may be just a misunderstanding....

Is there anything higher in the order of knowledge then a scientific theory?

Proven theories. Like Electromagnetism. Gravity... things that are proven.

Out of africa theory on human migration and evolution is just a theory. Same for the multi-regional development. It is unproven because they cannot be proven, most likely never, unless you develop a time machine. DNA supports, for the most part, the multi-regional development theory, at least in recent years, as I explained in a prior comment. DNA can also support out of Africa theory because you can make it seem that way. Data can be interpreted any way.


I just find it more logical that the multiregional development theory is true, rather than the out of Africa one. Why? Because like dogs or wolves or gazelles or many other creatures, they evolve in different geographic areas, adapting to their environment, along the same lines. Wolves don't become something else other than wolves. You have the same guidelines. Same of gazelles... birds...

Imagine it this way. You need to get to point A from point B. there is just one route, but you can either go on line 1 2 3. Line 1 is a tropical environment, line 2 is a temperate one and line 3 is full of kittens. No matter which line you pick, you will end up at B because there is just 1 direction. 1 line. No alternatives. Or rather, the alternatives you have will die. Because if you step off the route, sure, you may make it for some time but eventually, you'll die because you failed to get where you wanna get.

Neanderthals evolved from homo heilderbengis before homo sapiens did in Europe and parts of Asia. But they weren't really all that good... so they died out. They failed. They are the ones who ran off the route. Others who stayed on the route, on the lines, got to homo sapiens sooner or later because that's what the route tells us.

Did you get it? The natural world is not a nice place. Nature is a fascist dictatorship which kills the weak and the unadapted and promotes the strong and the adaptable. There are more species extinct on the planet than there will ever be alive because there have always been less than desirable mutations... adaptations of a species into various subspecies. And since they weren't what was desired, they didn't make it. They died.

We are the first species on the planet, as far as we can know, and the first homini, to actually be able to say "**** YOU" to nature and drastically adapt our world. Aside from us, all are victims to the dictatorship of nature.

 

[Ikari]

Given that homo sapiens is also the result of biological evolution, at what point did we become "human" and wake up to know God?

As soon as we evolved the intelligence necessary to conceive of gods.

 

[Bonzai]

The day we started doing what we wanted to do rather than what we're supposed to do...........................

 

[polgara]

Proven theories. Like Electromagnetism. Gravity... things that are proven.

Out of africa theory on human migration and evolution is just a theory. Same for the multi-regional development. It is unproven because they cannot be proven, most likely never, unless you develop a time machine. DNA supports, for the most part, the multi-regional development theory, at least in recent years, as I explained in a prior comment. DNA can also support out of Africa theory because you can make it seem that way. Data can be interpreted any way.


I just find it more logical that the multiregional development theory is true, rather than the out of Africa one. Why? Because like dogs or wolves or gazelles or many other creatures, they evolve in different geographic areas, adapting to their environment, along the same lines. Wolves don't become something else other than wolves. You have the same guidelines. Same of gazelles... birds...

Imagine it this way. You need to get to point A from point B. there is just one route, but you can either go on line 1 2 3. Line 1 is a tropical environment, line 2 is a temperate one and line 3 is full of kittens. No matter which line you pick, you will end up at B because there is just 1 direction. 1 line. No alternatives. Or rather, the alternatives you have will die. Because if you step off the route, sure, you may make it for some time but eventually, you'll die because you failed to get where you wanna get.

Neanderthals evolved from homo heilderbengis before homo sapiens did in Europe and parts of Asia. But they weren't really all that good... so they died out. They failed. They are the ones who ran off the route. Others who stayed on the route, on the lines, got to homo sapiens sooner or later because that's what the route tells us.

Did you get it? The natural world is not a nice place. Nature is a fascist dictatorship which kills the weak and the unadapted and promotes the strong and the adaptable. There are more species extinct on the planet than there will ever be alive because there have always been less than desirable mutations... adaptations of a species into various subspecies. And since they weren't what was desired, they didn't make it. They died.

We are the first species on the planet, as far as we can know, and the first homini, to actually be able to say "**** YOU" to nature and drastically adapt our world. Aside from us, all are victims to the dictatorship of nature.

Good evening, Rainman05. :2wave:

Excellent argument.

However, I believe that we are also victims of the dictatorship of nature. We cannot stop volcanoes from exploding, hurricanes and tornadoes from forming, droughts and floods, snow and ice storms, etc...all of which adversely affect people's lives. Early humans lived in caves for a reason.

There have been studies that have proven that animals and birds sense when an earthquake is about to occur, and they leave the area before our instrumentation even starts to register the tremors.

I question that we adapt our world to us, but rather we adapt to what is happening in our world as best as we can, and we aren't always successful at that, or so many of us would not die as a result of what nature throws at us . Just my opinion.... :shock:

 

[iguanaman]

Yes, evolution is just a theory. It is a very good theory, a very likely theory, but it is a theory. However, I am not denying evolution over 2mil years, from one homini to another. I am simply stating that the more likely course of human evolution and hence, how we populated the Earth, was through multi-regional development, and not, out of africa theory on human migration.

Nice try building a strawman boy. Learn a bit more will you.

We are not discussing climate here.

Until we find prehuman fossils like we have found in Africa in other parts of the World the most likely theory is that migration did not start until humans were already evolved.

 

[notquiteright]

Absolutely not. We are 99.8% homo sapiens. The 0.2% is what makes us our distinctive races.

you don't understand. 330k years ago there was just heilderbensis, not homo sapiens. And the ancestor, heidelbergensis, may have came from... wherever. There are bones of him everywhere in the world. Not just in Africa. So no, saying that it came from Africa is false. You cannot prove it. It existed for hundred of thousand of years everywhere in the world, and in some places it evolved into some other homini species that died out until it evolved into us, homo sapiens, the best.

It is not about not wanting to be african. It is a fallacy to describe it as such. Very simple. Your entire phrase, the green one, textbook out of africa arguments and even those with a bit of a flaw, which again, I don't buy into that. People who are dedicated to this profession have looked at the evidence found regarding humanity's past and came up with several theories. Just because you choose to stick to the herd and accept the most popular one, which you don't fully understand to be precise, because you don't understand what homo sapiens are, fine. Stick to it. I believe the multiregional development one because it makes more logical sense.

And no, we didn't come from monkeys. That is another stupid thing that stupid people say all the time. Primates and homini species have a common ancestor 2mil+ years ago. But we are the result of one branch... while "monkeys" are the result of another branch. And the difference between our branches is closest between humans and chimpanzees, 3%. But we didn't evolve from monkeys. A monkey will never evolve into a human being because the path it is on won't go that way.

Actually there was more than just heidelderberengsis that came out of Africa. The fossil proof as well as the DNA lineage, you claim can't be traced, have us all as out of Africa and Homo sapien came out later than heidelderberengsis and sapien replaced the earlier migrants. Again the fossil evidence has earlier types of man being replaced by the sapien wave out of Africa. The regional theory is embraced by those who don't wish to see all our ancestors as out of Africa, the Chinese have a strong cadre determined to 'prove' their race sprang from a regional born type of man.

It is a false argument you seem intent to push is using MODERN monkeys in my common ancestors theme as if no other monkeys ever existed. Actually we have as much in common with the modern chimp as we do, so you claim, with neanderthals. 4%.

Now when it comes to 'running with the pack'. Most have a very similar idea on the theory of gravity, but there are those who are disdainful of those who 'travel with the herd' and have their own theories. Evolution has it's disdainful of the pack cults as well... Intelligent Design, Creationism.

fact is Homo sapien came out of Africa and replaced all earlier forms, the percent that they inbred with earlier versions is highly debatable 1-4% and using that standard we should be able to interbred with chimpanzees.

So bottom line- we are all of African decent, even those who hate that idea. Our differences are literally skin deep but so profound in it's impact.

 

[Rainman05]

Good evening, Rainman05. :2wave:

Excellent argument.

However, I believe that we are also victims of the dictatorship of nature. We cannot stop volcanoes from exploding, hurricanes and tornadoes from forming, droughts and floods, snow and ice storms, etc...all of which adversely affect people's lives. Early humans lived in caves for a reason.

There have been studies that have proven that animals and birds sense when an earthquake is about to occur, and they leave the area before our instrumentation even starts to register the tremors.

I question that we adapt our world to us, but rather we adapt to what is happening in our world as best as we can, and we aren't always successful at that, or so many of us would not die as a result of what nature throws at us . Just my opinion.... :shock:

Yes, that is true, early on we, as homo sapiens, were just as poorly off as the rest of the creatures in the world. But here is what I think happened. Our adaptation made it possible for us to adapt the world to our needs and steer clear of certain "things" that nature throws at us.

We have central heating to deny the effects of winter in our house. We have made countless vaccines and cures for countless diseases. An animal born with a weak immune system is going to die. Nature will never let an animal with a weak immune system live. We can defy this for the most part and not let millions of our kind die over a stupid disease. Rabies, infections from scratches, all of them, cured. Furthermore, we cured numerous poisons that come from various animals and insects and reptiles. We're done with them all.

We stopped scarcity of food for instance. Sure, in the last 100 years more than ever before, but we did start this process for milleniums. We changed the landscape and made everything we wanted and we could. We did it all. For all intent and purposes, man is now the master of his fate.

One has the current discussion to make. Are we in fact denying natural evolution now? Since we pry away from so many of nature's brutal laws, are we subjected to natural evolution? Or will the next step in human evolution be of our own design. We, through our work and our society and the new kinds of foods we eat and drinks we drink... we may have just put down the building blocks for a different evolution. Whether this comes in time or built by our own hands... we can only wait and see.

 

[Rainman05]

Until we find prehuman fossils like we have found in Africa in other parts of the World the most likely theory is that migration did not start until humans were already evolved.

We did. Homo heidelbergensis is found all over the world. Africa, Eurasia, various other places. And he is our ancestor.

Homo erectus that lived from 1.8mil years ago, the ancestor of homo heilderbergensis, was also all over the world, Africa, Eurasia... etc.

So yeah. We have prehuman fossils from all over the world of our ancestors.

Check mate.

 

[Rainman05]

Actually there was more than just heidelderberengsis that came out of Africa. The fossil proof as well as the DNA lineage, you claim can't be traced, have us all as out of Africa and Homo sapien came out later than heidelderberengsis and sapien replaced the earlier migrants. Again the fossil evidence has earlier types of man being replaced by the sapien wave out of Africa. The regional theory is embraced by those who don't wish to see all our ancestors as out of Africa, the Chinese have a strong cadre determined to 'prove' their race sprang from a regional born type of man.

It is a false argument you seem intent to push is using MODERN monkeys in my common ancestors theme as if no other monkeys ever existed. Actually we have as much in common with the modern chimp as we do, so you claim, with neanderthals. 4%.

Now when it comes to 'running with the pack'. Most have a very similar idea on the theory of gravity, but there are those who are disdainful of those who 'travel with the herd' and have their own theories. Evolution has it's disdainful of the pack cults as well... Intelligent Design, Creationism.

fact is Homo sapien came out of Africa and replaced all earlier forms, the percent that they inbred with earlier versions is highly debatable 1-4% and using that standard we should be able to interbred with chimpanzees.

So bottom line- we are all of African decent, even those who hate that idea. Our differences are literally skin deep but so profound in it's impact.

You either are very stubborn or fail to properly read what I wrote before when discussing these matters.

No, Europeans and some Asians have 4% out of 0.2% (the racial difference between homo sapien races) in common with neanderthals. The rest, have no such thing. But the homo sapien species has 97% genetic similarity with the chimps.

The fossil proof, again is all over the place. Homo erectus and homo heilderbergensis are found all over Eurasia and Africa. So from 1.8mil years ago we have solid proof that homini species have existed all over the planet.

The regional theory is embraced by people who want to learn the truth about how we got here. Same as the out of africa theory. But the difference is that one side looks at the evidence and comes out with one conclusion, the other comes out with another conclusion. Feel free to support either one. I support multiregional development because it makes sense to me.

Yes you are right, homo sapiens did replace earlier forms. That's what I've been saying. But homo sapiens evolved in various regions simultaneously. Why did homo sapiens evolve? Because that's what we have been doing for 2mil years. We were evolving. And failed evolutions, like neanderthals in Europe, died out. Didn't make the cut. Weren't good enough for the purpose of adapting and surviving. Homo rudolfensis in Africa, died out because it didn't make the cut. Homo rhodensis in Africa, died out because it didn't make the cut. Wasn't good enough.

Until all over the world Homo Sapiens evolved from homo heildergensis and we made the cut. We lived. We are the peak of the evolutionary homini process so far. And since all species strive for adapting to the best form possible, it is not a mere accident that we have evolved to be what we are in various places of the world.

 

[notquiteright]

You either are very stubborn or fail to properly read what I wrote before when discussing these matters.

No, Europeans and some Asians have 4% out of 0.2% (the racial difference between homo sapien races) in common with neanderthals. The rest, have no such thing. But the homo sapien species has 97% genetic similarity with the chimps.

The fossil proof, again is all over the place. Homo erectus and homo heilderbergensis are found all over Eurasia and Africa. So from 1.8mil years ago we have solid proof that homini species have existed all over the planet.

The regional theory is embraced by people who want to learn the truth about how we got here. Same as the out of africa theory. But the difference is that one side looks at the evidence and comes out with one conclusion, the other comes out with another conclusion. Feel free to support either one. I support multiregional development because it makes sense to me.

Yes you are right, homo sapiens did replace earlier forms. That's what I've been saying. But homo sapiens evolved in various regions simultaneously. Why did homo sapiens evolve? Because that's what we have been doing for 2mil years. We were evolving. And failed evolutions, like neanderthals in Europe, died out. Didn't make the cut. Weren't good enough for the purpose of adapting and surviving. Homo rudolfensis in Africa, died out because it didn't make the cut. Homo rhodensis in Africa, died out because it didn't make the cut. Wasn't good enough.

Until all over the world Homo Sapiens evolved from homo heildergensis and we made the cut. We lived. We are the peak of the evolutionary homini process so far. And since all species strive for adapting to the best form possible, it is not a mere accident that we have evolved to be what we are in various places of the world.

You keep dodging one important fact, DNA has been documented in it's lineages and help map the migratory routes, if one of us is stubborn I'd say it is you.

You keep saying homo sapiens evolved in many regions at the same time and yet their DNA is soo similar it goes against logic that could have happened.

Few if any say Homo Sapien came from heild. neanderthal yes but not 'modern man' both heild and nean. are 'failures' dead ends, only sapien 'won'.

Again advances in DNA research is moving to out of africa and only those who want to claim the fossil record could have gone in or out of africa, which NO DNA supports. NO major humanoid evolved outside of Africa, ALL came from Africa at differing times. All but sapien failed.

But I understand there are folks who don't wish to say African, but would rather believe they came from a 'new' version developed elsewhere.

 

[Rainman05]

You keep dodging one important fact, DNA has been documented in it's lineages and help map the migratory routes, if one of us is stubborn I'd say it is you.

You keep saying homo sapiens evolved in many regions at the same time and yet their DNA is soo similar it goes against logic that could have happened.

Few if any say Homo Sapien came from heild. neanderthal yes but not 'modern man' both heild and nean. are 'failures' dead ends, only sapien 'won'.

Again advances in DNA research is moving to out of africa and only those who want to claim the fossil record could have gone in or out of africa, which NO DNA supports. NO major humanoid evolved outside of Africa, ALL came from Africa at differing times. All but sapien failed.

But I understand there are folks who don't wish to say African, but would rather believe they came from a 'new' version developed elsewhere.

DNA supports multiregional development too actually. Look it up.

We have been through this I feel...

Yes, of course homo sapien DNA is similar. That's why we are all HOMO SAPIENS. If our DNA weren't similar, we wouldn't all be HOMO SAPIENS. Can you not understand what a stupid argument you are making?

Neanderthals are the ancestors of only Europeans and some Asians. They never existed in Africa or other parts of Asia or elsewhere. As I said, 4% of 0.2% which makes up the racial difference between various human races is inherited from neanderthals in Europeans and some Asians. The rest of the races don't have it. They just don't. It's very simple.

And no, you are wrong. Not all homini evolved in Africa. Heilderbergensis is found all over the world. Erectus is found all over the world. While it is true, that erectus did evolve in Africa because his ancestor was austrolapitecus, which existed just in Africa, he then moved out and spread all over the world.

But that's 1.8mil years ago. We, homo sapiens, existed just for 0.2mil years. And we all evolved seperately in various regions.

 

[notquiteright]

DNA supports multiregional development too actually. Look it up.

We have been through this I feel...

Yes, of course homo sapien DNA is similar. That's why we are all HOMO SAPIENS. If our DNA weren't similar, we wouldn't all be HOMO SAPIENS. Can you not understand what a stupid argument you are making?

Neanderthals are the ancestors of only Europeans and some Asians. They never existed in Africa or other parts of Asia or elsewhere. As I said, 4% of 0.2% which makes up the racial difference between various human races is inherited from neanderthals in Europeans and some Asians. The rest of the races don't have it. They just don't. It's very simple.

And no, you are wrong. Not all homini evolved in Africa. Heilderbergensis is found all over the world. Erectus is found all over the world. While it is true, that erectus did evolve in Africa because his ancestor was austrolapitecus, which existed just in Africa, he then moved out and spread all over the world.

But that's 1.8mil years ago. We, homo sapiens, existed just for 0.2mil years. And we all evolved seperately in various regions.

Yes we have been through all of this, neanderthal is extinct. gone replaced by Cro-Magnon who came out of Africa as the DNA trail shows, no DNA doesn't support several points of Cro-Magnon evolution but a trail of DNA that branches and mutates with time. (recent DNA discoveries put neanderthal genetic material in Africa so the only in Asia and Europe line might be outdated.)

Stanford and U of Michigan have studied genetic variants, most would never be visible in the populations but exist as distinct markers. the most are concentrated in a few tribes in Africa, the least in Siberia and the Americas. The farther a population is from Africa and the 'newer' it is to it's area the fewer members there were in the base population and the shorter period of time these survivors had to create the marker 'drift'.

The science is getting very precise as they can now tell northern Han from Southern even when no visible indicator shows any difference.

If as you claim the sapiens sprang up in different regions then the drift in markers would be much more pronounced in the father away from Africa regions. They had the time in place to have drift. But that isn't the case.

 

[Rainman05]

Yes we have been through all of this, neanderthal is extinct. gone replaced by Cro-Magnon who came out of Africa as the DNA trail shows, no DNA doesn't support several points of Cro-Magnon evolution but a trail of DNA that branches and mutates with time. (recent DNA discoveries put neanderthal genetic material in Africa so the only in Asia and Europe line might be outdated.)

Stanford and U of Michigan have studied genetic variants, most would never be visible in the populations but exist as distinct markers. the most are concentrated in a few tribes in Africa, the least in Siberia and the Americas. The farther a population is from Africa and the 'newer' it is to it's area the fewer members there were in the base population and the shorter period of time these survivors had to create the marker 'drift'.

The science is getting very precise as they can now tell northern Han from Southern even when no visible indicator shows any difference.

If as you claim the sapiens sprang up in different regions then the drift in markers would be much more pronounced in the father away from Africa regions. They had the time in place to have drift. But that isn't the case.

Cro-magnon didn't come from Africa. There is no evidence to suggest that. You are talking out of your arse. There aren't even any bones of cro-magnon in Africa. It is a purely European homini. I know, I live in a country where we have 2 major sites of cro magnon.

And no, there is no DNA evidence that suggests what you said about neanderthals. There are no neanderthal bones in parts of Asia and Africa and there is no DNA link. If there is, i haven't seen it, provide a link. Yes, we have gone over the genetic markets thing. It does mean we all have a lot in common, we do, we're all homo sapiens. We're all 99.8% homo sapien, not 99.8% african. We have 99.8% of the same genetic material, not 99.8% of the african genetic material.

African. European. Far east asian. indian asian. Arab. Native american, etc. All these things are 0.2%. And in that 0.2% we have all the differences between humans and ethnic groups. If 3 people from Europe. A russian, a german and a spanish go and have their DNA tested. The results will show that they are in fact, a russian, a german and a spanish because they have genetic markers that are specific to those populations. But it doesn't work for proving we are african. It just doesn't.

 

[Muhammed]

When did we become human?

Any definitive answer to that question is totally arbitrary and/or subjective.

 

[gilbertc1908]

My following question to this line of reasoning is thus:

Did australopithecus communicate with God? How about Neanderthal?

And what about gorillas?

I guess I'm trying to find out when the Garden of Eden story was supposed to take place, or if this story is completely metaphorical (up to and including the word "created").

Again it seems you have it backward. If you are going to wonder about the "stories" metaphorical or not in the bible one which posits that there were two people charged by a supreme being with a dietary restriction seems pretty mundane and rather reasonable when compared to a man who is two other persons at the same time one of whom is the creator of all life and the universe, a virgin birth and of course a resurrection, three things we know have no scientific plausibility.....yet as Christians we still believe.

Frankly I do not find the Adam and Eve question terribly difficult if I accept the premise of Christianity, which is the source of my particular late in life discovered theism. And my responses are rhetorical questions meant to provide an insight into the actual answer to a much more difficult question than the one you ask.

The question which I think is much more interesting is; When and how is it that a person decides to believe something which he/she knows otherwise to be impossible?

 

[yobarnacle]

Maybe the question should be NOT when we became human, but ARE all of us human?

Any green lizard people lurking on this thread?

 

[yobarnacle]

Again it seems you have it backward. If you are going to wonder about the "stories" metaphorical or not in the bible one which posits that there were two people charged by a supreme being with a dietary restriction seems pretty mundane and rather reasonable when compared to a man who is two other persons at the same time one of whom is the creator of all life and the universe, a virgin birth and of course a resurrection, three things we know have no scientific plausibility.....yet as Christians we still believe.

Frankly I do not find the Adam and Eve question terribly difficult if I accept the premise of Christianity, which is the source of my particular late in life discovered theism. And my responses are rhetorical questions meant to provide an insight into the actual answer to a much more difficult question than the one you ask.

The question which I think is much more interesting is; When and how is it that a person decides to believe something which he/she knows otherwise to be impossible?

Obviously you don't feel believing in the Bible impossible.

And congratulations on having FAITH.

God loves you. HE IS Love!

 

[csbrown28]

Proven theories. Like Electromagnetism. Gravity... things that are proven.

Out of africa theory on human migration and evolution is just a theory. Same for the multi-regional development. It is unproven because they cannot be proven, most likely never, unless you develop a time machine. DNA supports, for the most part, the multi-regional development theory, at least in recent years, as I explained in a prior comment. DNA can also support out of Africa theory because you can make it seem that way. Data can be interpreted any way.


I just find it more logical that the multiregional development theory is true, rather than the out of Africa one. Why? Because like dogs or wolves or gazelles or many other creatures, they evolve in different geographic areas, adapting to their environment, along the same lines. Wolves don't become something else other than wolves. You have the same guidelines. Same of gazelles... birds...

Imagine it this way. You need to get to point A from point B. there is just one route, but you can either go on line 1 2 3. Line 1 is a tropical environment, line 2 is a temperate one and line 3 is full of kittens. No matter which line you pick, you will end up at B because there is just 1 direction. 1 line. No alternatives. Or rather, the alternatives you have will die. Because if you step off the route, sure, you may make it for some time but eventually, you'll die because you failed to get where you wanna get.

Neanderthals evolved from homo heilderbengis before homo sapiens did in Europe and parts of Asia. But they weren't really all that good... so they died out. They failed. They are the ones who ran off the route. Others who stayed on the route, on the lines, got to homo sapiens sooner or later because that's what the route tells us.

Did you get it? The natural world is not a nice place. Nature is a fascist dictatorship which kills the weak and the unadapted and promotes the strong and the adaptable. There are more species extinct on the planet than there will ever be alive because there have always been less than desirable mutations... adaptations of a species into various subspecies. And since they weren't what was desired, they didn't make it. They died.

We are the first species on the planet, as far as we can know, and the first homini, to actually be able to say "**** YOU" to nature and drastically adapt our world. Aside from us, all are victims to the dictatorship of nature.

Look, I don't pretend to know a whole lot about man's early origins, I was just correcting you on your use of the term theory. Wise ass? I can understand how you'd take it that way, thus all of the indigent contempt. I didn't mean to question your intelligence, just correct your use of a word...

Having said that, theories are ideas backed up by a body of tested evidence, I was unaware of the theory you state and frankly have no idea the number of peer reviewed papers that support your claims vs the, what I've come to understand as the more commonly held theory, what I know as "out of Africa". It is of course possible to have 2 or more theories that explain something, which of course weakens them both until one can be falsified, or they are both proven right, assuming that's possible. We could have come to this understanding rather quickly and avoided all the unpleasantry.

But I digress.....

At the risk of inciting you to another juvenile outburst, I find it interesting that you claim to understand evolution, yet say the following:

The natural world is not a nice place. Nature is a fascist dictatorship which kills the weak and the adapted and promotes the strong and the adaptable.

Now, before I correct you on this curious statement, I'll concede that, perhaps, you weren't careful with your choice of words, and perhaps you really know what I'm about to tell you, but since you've been so obtuse, I can't resist....

Besides the grammatical error, which I'll let slide (truthfully my grammar sucks), nature doesn't favor the "strong" or kill the "weak" it favors the "fit", those that are "unfit" adapt or die out. It really depends on what conditions a specie is being asked to adapt to in relation to it's environment. Humans aren't all that strong relative to their size and our strength has little to do with our incredible ability to adapt.

Now you did follow with the word "adaptable", which is of course correct (but you still got it 1/2 wrong). There are of course times when strength matters for a species, but the most adaptable creatures on earth possess very little physical strength, bacteria come to mind.

I'll concede that perhaps you meant something other than physical strength, but it wasn't clear. A pompous fellow like yourself should take a little more time to make himself (I assume your a "he") clear as to avoid being corrected.

Do you see what I did there? Though I expect you to respond with another childish outburst, and that's ok, you need to save face. Hopefully next time you'll think twice before reacting like a cocky arrogant twit....

-Cheers :2wave:

 

[Rainman05]

Look, I don't pretend to know a whole lot about man's early origins, I was just correcting you on your use of the term theory. Wise ass? I can understand how you'd take it that way, thus all of the indigent contempt. I didn't mean to question your intelligence, just correct your use of a word...

Having said that, theories are ideas backed up by a body of tested evidence, I was unaware of the theory you state and frankly have no idea the number of peer reviewed papers that support your claims vs the, what I've come to understand as the more commonly held theory, what I know as "out of Africa". It is of course possible to have 2 or more theories that explain something, which of course weakens them both until one can be falsified, or they are both proven right, assuming that's possible. We could have come to this understanding rather quickly and avoided all the unpleasantry.

But I digress.....

At the risk of inciting you to another juvenile outburst, I find it interesting that you claim to understand evolution, yet say the following:

Ok. Then we have nothing else to say. I knew you knew very little on the subject that's why you made constant errors and didn't understand what I wrote.

That's why you didn't know the difference between a theory and a proven theory. But that's ok.

[/QUOTE]
Now, before I correct you on this curious statement, I'll concede that, perhaps, you weren't careful with your choice of words, and perhaps you really know what I'm about to tell you, but since you've been so obtuse, I can't resist....

Besides the grammatical error, which I'll let slide (truthfully my grammar sucks), nature doesn't favor the "strong" or kill the "weak" it favors the "fit", those that are "unfit" adapt or die out. It really depends on what conditions a specie is being asked to adapt to in relation to it's environment. Humans aren't all that strong relative to their size and our strength has little to do with our incredible ability to adapt.

Now you did follow with the word "adaptable", which is of course correct (but you still got it 1/2 wrong). There are of course times when strength matters for a species, but the most adaptable creatures on earth possess very little physical strength, bacteria come to mind.

I'll concede that perhaps you meant something other than physical strength, but it wasn't clear. A pompous fellow like yourself should take a little more time to make himself (I assume your a "he") clear as to avoid being corrected.

Do you see what I did there? Though I expect you to respond with another childish outburst, and that's ok, you need to save face. Hopefully next time you'll think twice before reacting like a cocky arrogant twit....

-Cheers :2wave:[/QUOTE]

I may have written with some errors in time but that's because I am discussing vs 3 people who fail to grasp the obvious. You included.
That's why I said: "The natural world is not a nice place. Nature is a fascist dictatorship which kills the weak and the (un)adapted and promotes the strong and the adaptable."
I did make a mistake saying the weak and the adapted, it should have been the unadapted; and promotes the strong and the adaptable.

Strength comes in many ways. Not just one. It's not just muscles and the ability to lift a lot.

You are being childish here. And you should prolly stop making a fool of yourself. Learn a bit more if you are interested in the topic and come back again at some later time. If you don't know stuff about the topic, then don't enter a discussion with someone who does. Or else the end result will be that you fall flat on your nose.

 

[fmw]

I was chatting with a scientist friend a while ago and were discussing how intelligent porpoises appear to be and how they have such large brains. I asked him why porpoises hadn't progressed further in terms of the things humans can do. His answer was that porpoises can't create and control fire. It seemed a like a reasonable answer and I'll offer it to the thread. We became humans when we learned to create and control fire.