Jump to content
The Corroboree
sagiXsagi

Origins of Homo sapiens

Recommended Posts

Yeah mate its a uni book. From my first year Human Biology units.

An I agree I reckon its a pretty cool book and a very cool topic

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just wanted to make a notation - to address some of the above comments and inevitable future ones - that 'evolution' should be understood as adaptation, whether to physical or social aspects of a being's environment. Evolution does not mean progression in the sense of general improvement.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to warmly recommend this book to everyone interested in the subject 

https://www.amazon.com/Sapiens-Humankind-Yuval-Noah-Harari/dp/0062316095

 

================= 

 

nice link on findings showing the sapiens migration to australia was 10.000 years earlier than previously thought and how it effects the timing of other events like hybridisation with denisovan... 

Complications also might indicate that there were more than one migration to australia

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/07/find-australia-hints-very-early-human-exit-africa

 

**** 

sapiens-neanderthal hybridisation paper:

The finding confirms that Neandertals interbred with modern humans more than once, and it is the first evidence that the two types of humans had a liaison in Europe.

 

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6237/847

 

**** 

 

this is somewhat dated article, but interestingly speaks of how there seems to be evidence of hominid sea-traveling, from 130.000 - 700.000 years ago, from tools found in Crete, a big and old island of greece that is relatively close to africa.. 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1343969/Stone-Age-tools-Crete-prove-man-sailed-sea-130-000-years-ago.html

 

***** 

and a cool diagram

 

Homo-Stammbaum,_Version_Stringer-en.svg.png

Edited by sagiXsagi
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"It is not known for sure which hominin species created and used Oldowan tools. Its emergence is often associated with the species Australopithecus garhi[7] and its flourishing with early species of Homo such as H. habilis andH. ergaster. Early Homo erectus appears to inherit Oldowan technology and refines it into the Acheulean industry beginning 1.7 million years ago.[8] "

 

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

 

**********stone tool technology !!!!**************

The Mode 2 Acheulean toolmakers also used the Mode 1 flake tool method but supplemented it by using bone, antler, or wood to shape stone tools. This type of hammer, compared to stone, yields more control over the shape of the finished tool. Unlike the earlier Mode 1 industries, it was the core that was prized over the flakes that came from it. Another advance was that the Mode 2 tools were worked symmetrically and on both sides indicating greater care in the production of the final tool.[citation needed]

 

One theory goes further and suggests that some special hand-axes were made and displayed by males in search of mate, using a large, well-made hand-axe to demonstrate that they possessed sufficient strength and skill to pass on to their offspring. Once they had attracted a female at a group gathering, it is suggested that they would discard their axes, perhaps explaining why so many are found together.[26]

 

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

 

*** stone tool technology **** 

 

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

 

The Mousterian (or Mode III) is a techno-complex(archaeological industry) of flint tools associated primarily withNeanderthals, as well as with the earliest anatomically modern humans in Eurasia. 

Edited by sagiXsagi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love the idea of carrying an axe to attract females.  i might try it.

 

But then abandoning the axe?  No way.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember how botanika used to talk about a redheaded race existing at all these different locations?  

 

Have yall heard about these mummified remains found in new zealand?  I asked a kiwi mate about them. He thinks the research is gonna be kept under wraps for many years as part of some agreement/assuagement between maoris and the grubbymint.  i cant confirm but thought it worth mentioning even though its more about early human than pre human.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess there is no love for Homo naledi?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2017 at 1:53 AM, ThunderIdeal said:

I love the idea of carrying an axe to attract females.  i might try it.

 

But then abandoning the axe?  No way.

LOL

 

but I think the idea was that making hand-axes was a pretty basic skill for a man, and it is theorised that they made these specific handaxes for this particular event.. maybe the handaxe was just a religious symbol, and it didnt really mater in the choice... or maybe its "sacrifice" that is leaving it behind was a part of the ritual.... 

 

16 hours ago, Inyan said:

Guess there is no love for Homo naledi?

 

wow didnt know about that thanks!! 

 

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

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For a review of the current genetic literature and what it tells us about the evolution of hominids, have a read of "The Forgotten Exodus: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution" by Bruce R Fenton. Needless to say the mainstream "Out of Africa" proponents don't like Fenton's work, not least of all because he is not an anthropologist. If he's on the money, there's a little bit of re-thinking to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Instead if reading the book which im not gonna do, can you tell us at least the gist of the book?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/19/2016 at 1:43 AM, slice said:

If we evolved, why we evolved into something worst? It does not make sense. How can nature evolve to destroy itself, that makes sense only if we consider humans a cancer of the planet. Why worst? Well..technology and science are worth shit if there is there are no clear skies, clean water , clean oceans, etc... This is a hoax! Humans deep in the Amazon Forest are by far more evolved than us, their biotechnology is a zillion light years from our pseudo imitation of nature.

How a simple 100 years could destroy this much? Yes sure we are the best and more evolved on the planet....give me a break. We now everything, even who/what made us! Its ridiculous.

 

what if the planet (in it's own way) knows it will be destroyed... we know the sun will consume it in a few billion years, perhaps in-habitability will be sooner, but the Earth's sensory network may have been detecting passing comets and asteroids for millennia, destined to collide at some point or perhaps it remembers previous collisions, who knows... i'm open minded.

 

if this is the case perhaps it is our destiny to extract and exploit resources (plant animal mineral), industrialise, build starships and survive.

 

the mushrooms once told me that there is no intelligent life beyond our planet. that the aliens we see in books and movies from (ironically ,) about 100 years ago until the present are actually evolved humans. we are after all becoming more hairless, smaller jaws with more processed foods, and darker slit eyes offer the greatest protection from a more intense sun (globally warmed and or expanding). i mention this not only as it's a pretty cool campfire tale but it also provides me with a kind of extreme optimism.

 

imho technology and science are not the problem, the problem is politicians and capitalists and yeah, it's hard to see an end to their destructive ways...

 

hopefully all these mega rich people trying to build spaceships for tourism and send people to mars etc can play a role in stabilising the destruction here first :wink:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one seems to have mentioned the aquatic ape hypothesis. I should stress that the theory isn't accepted by mainstream science but it is interesting to think about....

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis

 

+ a video

 

 

 

Edited by Slocombe
Link to YouTube

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ThunderIdeal said:

Instead if reading the book which im not gonna do, can you tell us at least the gist of the book?

 

Yeah, much easier. Sorry.

 

Basically Fenton has collected and reviewed the work (from the forward of the book) "...of the most esteemed scientists in the fields of evolutionary biology and paleoanthropology. Where ever possible we focus on peer reviewed scientific papers based on research guided by solid protocols, in almost all cases the scientific sources I have used can be considered mainstream authorities"

 

The blurb for the book describes it better than I can at the mo:

 

70,000 years ago, two new haplogroups appeared in East Africa, the L3 mtDNA lineage and the CT Y-chromosomal lineage. Almost all non-Africans can trace their maternal and paternal ancestry from these two lines. This understanding establishes the earliest possible dating for an African migration event populating Eurasia and America.

Archaeological evidence places modern humans in Australasia earlier than 70,000 years ago. Genetic research confirms that Australasian Aboriginal populations are descended from the HgL3 and HgCT lineages and stem from the same founding population as do modern Asians and Europeans. One theory that attempted to explain this all away by involving multiple waves of migrants has recently collapsed under the weight of the contrary evidence.

Archaeological sites in the Levant, Middle East, China and India all offer evidence of a previous colonisation of the Eurasian continent by modern humans long before the children of HgL3 and HgCT took possession of the world. What happened to these first people? Why don’t we carry their genes today?

Modern humans as we know them today carry traces of extinct relatives in their genome. We are left to wonder what brought about the end of the world for Neanderthals, Denisovans, Floresiensis and other yet to be named hominins. Why did our ancestors encounter an almost empty continent as they moved through Eurasia?

During the last few years, a series of incredible discoveries have finally provided the evidence required to answer these and other profoundly important questions of our mysterious human origins.

It is now possible to pinpoint the precise moment that doom fell upon the first modern humans of Eurasia in the form of a natural cataclysm that equally devastating for the Neanderthals and Denisovans. The myth of the aggressive conquering migrants from Africa killing their cousins is at last exposed for what it is, a sham, a wild guess with no scientific basis.

Perhaps the first wave of modern humans entering Europe and Asia began their journey in Africa 200,000 - 150,000 years ago, but the recolonisation of Eurasia 70,000 – 60,000 years ago started from Australasia.

This book calls for a paradigm displacement, but such a bold request requires detailed evidence. The only question remaining now is, whether you are ready to explore the evidence for yourself and follow the Forgotten Exodus?

 

I was a bit skeptical before I read it, but he presents a very convincing argument. I haven't been able to find any rebuttals from any of the proponents of the out of Africa theory, so I've got nothing to balance any argument between the two theories. His presentation of the genetic data in particular, seems to me to de-legitimize the OOA theory and the currently accepted timeline and sequence of hominid evolution. 

 

Whilst he's not an anthropologist, he is a respected scientific researcher who is a member of the Paleoanthropological Society and the Scientific and Medical Network.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has any one heard of Parallel Gene Transfer (or lateral or horizontal depends which book you read). The basic theory is that there is no evolutionary tree, no single origin as such. More an evolutionary web, a web driven by viruses. Viruses are not technically alive, because they don't have enough DNA to reproduce. To reproduce they must invade a host cell and steal some DNA. Because their DNA is so unstable the process of reproduction usualy tears their DNA, sometime leaving bits behind, sometime taking bits with them when they enter a new host. Over time a group of organisms (or people) living in close proximity, sharing viruses, will also share DNA, becomeing more alike. There is also many proven cases of inter species transfer, swine flu for instance contains DNA from avian, pig and human all in a single incomplete strand. The machanics of the theory is the entire foundation for the science of genetic enginering.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats a pretty interesting theory crop!

 

@Insequent

 

1 hour ago, Insequent said:

70,000 years ago, two new haplogroups appeared

 

 

Is such a thing even possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, DualWieldRake said:

Is such a thing even possible?

 

Well yes, but I assume you mean is it possible considering the current accepted theory modern homo sapiens originated in Africa and spread from there circa 70 000 years ago. The answer to that is no, it's not possible. There had to be modern homo sapiens evolving from a common origin tens or hundreds of thousands of years prior to 70 000 BC for two haplogroups to appear. And for them to suddenly turn up in the African lineage at this time, there had to have been a meeting of the hominids who inhabited Africa at the time and the hominids who arrived carrying these haplogoups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2017 at 6:50 AM, Insequent said:

For a review of the current genetic literature and what it tells us about the evolution of hominids, have a read of "The Forgotten Exodus: The Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution" by Bruce R Fenton. Needless to say the mainstream "Out of Africa" proponents don't like Fenton's work, not least of all because he is not an anthropologist. If he's on the money, there's a little bit of re-thinking to do.

 

cant find when the book was written, plus I am in the stage of downloading directly papers and reading some recent research from the research paper itself,, dont think I fancy reading a non scientist, but I will keep it in my mind... 

 

this is a huge subject... in a few words my understanding is that the scientific consensus has been very hesitant to admit the initial "out of africa" model which was considered consensus, was well challennged from 2006-2007..  and it has done so for almost a decate

 

but the picture now is completely different! all wikipedia articles mention the hybridisation events and multiple out of africa from multiple homininds... the article on the denisovan didnt exist in the current form a couple years ago... the picture on the net is completely different.. 

 

it is now well accepted that our species interbred with 3 other species.. even the location of the birth of the hominids, in africa was recently challenged... 

 

in this particular subject the hesiatation is somewhat more  understandable, considering the tabboos and the arrogance and snobbery of science towards our closest relatives and out ancestors... 

 

you know, us humans were supposed to be so above all the rest of the human-like apes... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2017 at 11:14 AM, Slocombe said:

No one seems to have mentioned the aquatic ape hypothesis. I should stress that the theory isn't accepted by mainstream science but it is interesting to think about....

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_ape_hypothesis

 

 

 

I have read about it, it's interesting even though it seems to be pretty well debunked. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Insequent said:

 

Well yes, but I assume you mean is it possible considering the current accepted theory modern homo sapiens originated in Africa and spread from there circa 70 000 years ago. The answer to that is no, it's not possible. There had to be modern homo sapiens evolving from a common origin tens or hundreds of thousands of years prior to 70 000 BC for two haplogroups to appear. And for them to suddenly turn up in the African lineage at this time, there had to have been a meeting of the hominids who inhabited Africa at the time and the hominids who arrived carrying these haplogoups.

 

Dude the out of africa theory is not as strong as it was... and sapiens surely evolved long before 70.000 .... recent evidence shows that by 65.000 years ago sapiens had already migrated to australia.... 

 

I feel there are much more exodi than currently hypothesised...  for example there are evidence that there were older out of africas for which we didn't calculate up to now...   australia might have been conquered twice by sapiens... 

 

but how does the writer of th book you say prove this?? 

Quote

The myth of the aggressive conquering migrants from Africa killing their cousins is at last exposed for what it is, a sham, a wild guess with no scientific basis.

 

also, I am not familiar with genetics, I wont get into halplogroups or whatever... 

 

 

In any case, you seem to not be realising that the consensus in paleoanthopology has radically changed!   long live the first version of Out of africa...  fuck those fuckers

 

ciao

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/18/2017 at 2:18 PM, Crop said:

Has any one heard of Parallel Gene Transfer (or lateral or horizontal depends which book you read). The basic theory is that there is no evolutionary tree, no single origin as such. More an evolutionary web, a web driven by viruses. Viruses are not technically alive, because they don't have enough DNA to reproduce. To reproduce they must invade a host cell and steal some DNA. Because their DNA is so unstable the process of reproduction usualy tears their DNA, sometime leaving bits behind, sometime taking bits with them when they enter a new host. Over time a group of organisms (or people) living in close proximity, sharing viruses, will also share DNA, becomeing more alike. There is also many proven cases of inter species transfer, swine flu for instance contains DNA from avian, pig and human all in a single incomplete strand. The machanics of the theory is the entire foundation for the science of genetic enginering.

 

yep I have read about this, or something like this... makes much more sense to me, the taxonomy being - web like and not tree like.... BUT, again I wont pretend to understand genetics... but yeah, my gut tells me that this "no single origin theory" makes much more sense than usual interpretations that assume much more and overstate the ability of man to decide about if a bone fracture finger belongs to this or that or to a new species of homo ... 

in regards to viruses and DNA it is well known our dna contains some 'fossil viruses' within, I had read something about this, and how the placenta was eventually created in response to some viral interaction with early mammals, but I am not sure and I sure cant phrase it well... 

 

I will also I am trying to create intergeneric hybrids with cacti, lol not humans, this last year, for example ferobergia and astrobergia , but DNA shit I dont really understand... 

 

ciao

 

 

Edited by sagiXsagi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

please, before getting into books by non scientists, look up what is the wiki consensus...

read this article its very exciting if you like this subject... 

 

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

 

another scheme from google images which reflects the major shift in the field. note that 5 separate hybridisation events are pictured! 

 

 

evolution.png

Edited by sagiXsagi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, sagiXsagi said:

Dude the out of africa theory is not as strong as it was... and sapiens surely evolved long before 70.000 .... recent evidence shows that by 65.000 years ago sapiens had already migrated to australia.... 

 

I feel there are much more exodi than currently hypothesised...  for example there are evidence that there were older out of africas for which we didn't calculate up to now...   australia might have been conquered twice by sapiens... 

sagi, the book I mentioned agrees with your thoughts. It proposes a migration of modern humans from Australasia circa 200 000 BC, arriving in Africa some time before 70 000 BC. Genetic and anthropological evidence now strongly suggests the forbears of Australian and Asian Aboriginals were in Australia and Asia long before 65 000 years ago. The genetic data may even support a time frame as far back as 400 000 years, potentially longer. Conversely, the current genetic data does not support an exodus from Africa to Australia at any time. 

 

13 hours ago, sagiXsagi said:

but how does the writer of th book you say prove this??

He supports his hypothesis with genetic evidence and correlating it with anthropological and archaeological findings. These data are not his. He is a research scientist specializing in paleo-anthropology, researching and collating the peer reviewed scientific findings of leaders in their field.

 

13 hours ago, sagiXsagi said:

also, I am not familiar with genetics, I wont get into halplogroups or whatever... 

 

You don't need to be familiar with genetics, but you will have a very difficult time establishing a comprehensive time line for the evolution of hominids without it. 

 

13 hours ago, sagiXsagi said:

In any case, you seem to not be realising that the consensus in paleoanthopology has radically changed!   long live the first version of Out of africa...  fuck those fuckers

No I'm not. I think you've misread what I'm saying. (Unless I'm misunderstanding you). I am only familiar with one version of OOA theory, (and I'm uncertain who you're referring to with "fuck those fuckers..) which claims an origin circa 130 000 to 115 000 years ago and first migration of modern humans from Africa about 70 000 years ago. The Australian Aboriginals, Papua New Guinean and Sub Asians carry genetic markers (Denisovan and Neanderthal, among others) in far greater percentages than the folk of direct African descent. This can only be plausible if the ancestors of those living in Australasia preceded those living on the African continent, by a very long time. And the genetic data also supports the co-existence of Neanderthals, Denisovans and Homo Sapiens, along with a couple of as-yet-to-be identified hominids.

 

Considering this, I'm  certainly not disagreeing with you on the notion of a much earlier time for the evolution of anatomically modern humans. I'm with ya on this one, sagi. And yeah, I am aware the consensus in PA has changed. The first evidence indicating a need for a paradigm shift started to come to light at least 30 years ago, probably longer. Fenton's work summarizes this paradigm shift.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, sagiXsagi said:

evolution.png

 

So asians have small amounts of neanderthal and denisovan DNA in addition to modern human DNA but Europeans only have neanderthal DNA in addition to modern human DNA? Anyone have estimates of the relative percentage of denisovan/neanderthal DNA in different modern human populations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

neanderthal is between zero and two percent in europeans and asians i think.  unless you're a redhead then you definitely aren't zero percent.

 

a quick search reveals that oceania has the highest, 2 percent neanderthal and 5 percent denisovan.

Edited by ThunderIdeal
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Insequent> 

I dont ever feel the need to think black and white, like many scientists and scientifists and people of scientific religiocity ..

 

The inconsistencies in the chronology of the journey from africa to australia can have several explanations - fe. multiple wave of bigger and smaller emigrations.... well I havent yet heard of a reverse journey from australia to africa, I would love to read something about it, even though it doesnt suit the very recent findings from australia and current consensus... 

 

You are still not giving any arguements about the non-violent nature of the disappearance of Homo pieces like neanderthal.. any links are again very welcome.... 

 

on OOA and the "fuck those fuckers"  was refering to people who take the consensus, a well challenged consensus and try to save it, as it it was a religion or an ideology of some kind.. 

 

 

1 hour ago, Slocombe said:

 

So asians have small amounts of neanderthal and denisovan DNA in addition to modern human DNA but Europeans only have neanderthal DNA in addition to modern human DNA? Anyone have estimates of the relative percentage of denisovan/neanderthal DNA in different modern human populations?

 

if you are talking genetics, I dont know what use there is for it if someone cant read the genetic data. There are tons of info out there, and thankfully some people explain it to us in a simpler language... 

 

I understand the tendency to bring the matter to today, races and current DNA and whatnot, but I am not really interested in this currently- I regard this another kind of subject and I will propably read up on it in the future......

 

besides, this would need dna tests from the whole human polulation... it would be super, but it is somewhat un-doable...

 

anyways in my understanding 

 

all non africans have neanderthal genes, 

I think white skinned persons and red-haired persons somewhat more

 

africans seem to be pure sapiens

 

denisovan genes exist in lesser degree and it smaller populations... thus a smal percentage of asians have those denisovan markers... 

1 hour ago, ThunderIdeal said:

neanderthal is between zero and two percent in europeans and asians i think.  unless you're a redhead then you definitely aren't zero percent.

 

a quick search reveals that oceania has the highest, 2 percent neanderthal and 5 percent denisovan.

 

nah, I think it up to 4% for neanderthals in non africans and pretty smaller for those who have the denisovan markers, like 0,5 % or something...

 

in any case  I dont know how useful it is to talk in that sense of statistical generality

 

Edited by sagiXsagi
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×