Europe was the birthplace of mankind, not Africa, scientists find

sparky

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
4,717
Sydney
#11
in the last decades , new Homos have been found , totally confusing the picture
from the Hobbits to the Denisovians plus a fair amount of re-shuffling the bones already at hand

the whole field is in a state of turmoil

there were homos all over the old world by 100.000 BC , possibly in Australia with a (very) remote possibility of having reached the Americas
for the last mentioned , the absence of incontrovertible evidence would act as a negative proof
the date for ancestral humans in Europe and central Asia has been consistently pushed back well beyond the 1million year mark
India and China provide the same line of though
ultimately genetics provide the only sure light in this darkness
 
Likes: Linschoten
Mar 2019
1,482
Kansas
#12
in the last decades , new Homos have been found , totally confusing the picture
from the Hobbits to the Denisovians plus a fair amount of re-shuffling the bones already at hand
And to make it more confusing. DNA evidence from Australia and India point to yet another ancestor (completely unknown) Humans carrying Denisovian genes also seem to be carrying 2-3% genetic material of an undiscovered Hominid
 
Mar 2019
1,535
KL
#14
genetic has the same ''assumption'' case as the archaeology does, genetics cannot solve crap until and unless we have the genetic data from archaeology itself which will be impossible esp for the regions like india, one may get it from artics but not damp and humid places like india.

archaeology does show the possibility of multiple case of independent modern humans and their cultures have affinities across the world.

the thing about australian and indian connection is a pseudo science as well, that thing has been debunked few years ago. probably the assumption is based on some superficial resemblence with tamil population with the australian aboriginal.

the western geneticists seem to be concocting few stuff based on their assumptions as well, collecting data and manipulating them according to their wishes, all their conclusions have also been challenged.

why does ''aryan migration genetics'' not proved through the anthropological studies conducted on the harappan skeletal remains?

people making genetic conclusions are doing confirmation bias nothing else.

genetic research is also at its very infancy.

regards
 
Last edited:

Naomasa298

Forum Staff
Apr 2010
34,607
T'Republic of Yorkshire
#15
genetic has the same ''assumption'' case as the archaeology does, genetics cannot solve crap until and unless we have the genetic data from archaeology itself which will be impossible esp for the regions like india, one may get it from artics but not damp and humid places like india.

archaeology does show the possibility of multiple case of independent modern humans and their cultures have affinities across the world.

the thing about australian and indian connection is a pseudo science as well, that thing has been debunked few years ago. probably the assumption is based on some superficial resemblence with tamil population with the australian aboriginal.

the western geneticists seem to be concocting few stuff based on their assumptions as well, collecting data and manipulating them according to their wishes, all their conclusions have also been challenged.

why does ''aryan migration genetics'' not proved through the anthropological studies conducted on the harappan skeletal remains?

people making genetic conclusions are doing confirmation bias nothing else.

genetic research is also at its very infancy.

regards
We don't discuss genetics on Historum.
 

Shtajerc

Ad Honorem
Jul 2014
6,699
Lower Styria, Slovenia
#16
There sure are a lot of misteries left. It's nice to see that pretty much every year they discover something new, find new remains and such. I think quite a few sites were discovered in America that were much older than Clovis. I'm not surprised they find older and older stuff all around the world. Everything must be well researched and reviewed though before someone starts making assumptions and selling them as the new truth. By the same token, old geezers needn't reject something that new evidence points to just because it doesn't fit in nicely with their old models.
 
Dec 2011
4,808
Iowa USA
#18
No, much further back than that, back to the time when a hominid line called Panini split from the human (Homo) line, somewhere between 5 to 10 million years ago. Panini are those which evolved under Pan in the diagram below:




The study is about various fossils found and their relationship to the Pan and Homo, fossils known by names such as graecopithecus. They attempt to place the fossils in that tree and apply dates. It's an awful long time before modern humans though and even neanderthals. It is nothing to do with the spread of modern humans out of africa which was between 100,000 and 30,000 years ago.
Talk about scotching a possibly ferocious fight with facts. Thank you for that.
 
Likes: BuckBradley
Mar 2019
1,482
Kansas
#19
the thing about australian and indian connection is a pseudo science as well, that thing has been debunked few years ago. probably the assumption is based on some superficial resemblence with tamil population with the australian aboriginal.
I would be extremely interested in seeing this debunking information. The only thing I have seen discussed if the Indian migration was the first, or was it a second migration only some 40,000 years ago, as opposed to 100,000 plus years ago
 
Aug 2010
16,202
Welsh Marches
#20
The ocean floor is the birthplace of mankind.
Well there was a theory that human beings evolved into their present form in the sea, the so-called aquatic ape theory:

Aquatic ape hypothesis - Wikipedia

I didn't know that Sir Alister Hardy had something to do with this (a great biologist who was something of a hero of mine when I was a teenager, I managed to wangle an introduction to him and once had tea with him in his Oxford home, one of the most fascinating encounters of my life, he was a philosopher-scientist with wide interests who had also founded a group to conduct research into religious experience).