Is this defenitive proof against OOA II theory?

Jul 2017
2,753
Crows nest
#31
Even if true, it still ain't multiple species speciating into homo sapiens, is it?
Certainly there is ape #1, after that is a long period of uncertainty due to gaps in the fossil record. There was coelurosaur #1 back in the Jurassic, and from them sprung, among others, Maniraptoriformes, appearing today in trees and bushes in your garden, and Tyrannosauridae, fortunately not appearing in your garden. One origin for creatures that in size and habits could be very divergent from each other, or so close that we struggle to tell them apart. Can we get from us today all the way back to ape #1 in a straight line, one exists, it must, but there are bifurcations and parallel tracks on the way.
 
Likes: Kotromanic
Jun 2014
6,000
Lisbon, Portugal
#33
Earliest modern human found outside Africa

As we all learned, Out of Africa II (the theory that modern humans are originary from Africa and then spread) is the current acepted theory.
Recent findings in the Balkans, and new theories are challeging it.

Can this change the all view about early human origins?
You are making some confusion here:

The Out of Africa theory formulates that our current species - Homo Sapiens - mostly evolved in Africa and then expanded to the other continents in one major migration movement (although it is recognized that some early, but unsuccessful out of Africa migrations took place) and then mixed with other extant archaic humans that they found along the way.

The findings in the Balkans had nothing to do with Homo Sapiens, what they discovered is the oldest fossil of a hominid - the earliest species of our animal kingdom - but this ape-like creature was presumed to have lived 7.2 millions years ago, way before the advent of our species.

The other thing is that 7.2 million years ago our Continents didn't exist in our current form - there wasn't even a Mediterranean sea that separated Europe from Africa, so it's very much ridiculous to figure out if that fossil is African or European by modern standards.
 
Dec 2011
4,718
Iowa USA
#34
You are making some confusion here:

The Out of Africa theory formulates that our current species - Homo Sapiens - mostly evolved in Africa and then expanded to the other continents in one major migration movement (although it is recognized that some early, but unsuccessful out of Africa migrations took place) and then mixed with other extant archaic humans that they found along the way.

The findings in the Balkans had nothing to do with Homo Sapiens, what they discovered is the oldest fossil of a hominid - the earliest species of our animal kingdom - but this ape-like creature was presumed to have lived 7.2 millions years ago, way before the advent of our species.

The other thing is that 7.2 million years ago our Continents didn't exist in our current form - there wasn't even a Mediterranean sea that separated Europe from Africa, so it's very much ridiculous to figure out if that fossil is African or European by modern standards.
The date of the source for this interpretation?

My very recent text in Earth History shows the Mediterranean as the successor to the Tethys Ocean from the Permian Era!! Whether there were land bridges in the Eastern Mediterranean in the particular range of 6-8 million years ago would be a different question than whether the Mediterranean "existed".
 
Jun 2014
6,000
Lisbon, Portugal
#36
And the Steady State theory used to be a fairly popular model of the origin of the universe. Theories change as evidence comes to light.

This discovery, at the moment, does nothing more than move OOA back in time. The theory may need some refinement, but the majority of evidence still supports it.
The scientific research from this last decade is leading us to a more complex picture about the origin and dispersal of our species.

Yes, the OOA is unshakable right now and all evidence leads to that, but it was not just that every single human alive stems from one small group of individuals and that's the only story.

What is the most plausible explanation, considering the evidence we have, is that all human beings alive today - that means all non-Africans and the majority of the ancestry of most Africans - do stem from one single population that lived around the Horn of Africa and then expanded to West Africa roughly 100.000 years ago and then another branch of that population expanded Out of Africa 50.000 years ago.

What happened in Africa in pre-history is still largely unknown and the study of this subject is still in the infancy, but scientists know enough to depict a pre-OOA Africa has a very diverse continent when it comes to its Homo Sapiens population. The expanding East Africans of 100.000 years ago (the Mitochondrial Eve and Y-chromossome Adam) were not the first and only homo sapiens population that lived in Africa, they were just one of the many populations that inhabited the continent - but they expanded throughout Africa and mixed or absorbed all other human populations. Only the Khoisan and Pygmys of Africa seem to at least retain a great part of their ancestry to the pre-OOA period.

What happened in Eurasia is more well-known: It was also inhabited by other Homo species, but this OOA homo sapiens population quickly replaced them, but still with some hybridization.
 
Mar 2019
1,192
Kansas
#37
The date of the source for this interpretation?

My very recent text in Earth History shows the Mediterranean as the successor to the Tethys Ocean from the Permian Era!! Whether there were land bridges in the Eastern Mediterranean in the particular range of 6-8 million years ago would be a different question than whether the Mediterranean "existed".
No current thinking is the sea dried up 6 to 5 million years ago, then re flooded when the strait of Gibraltar was breached
 
Jun 2014
6,000
Lisbon, Portugal
#38
The date of the source for this interpretation?

My very recent text in Earth History shows the Mediterranean as the successor to the Tethys Ocean from the Permian Era!! Whether there were land bridges in the Eastern Mediterranean in the particular range of 6-8 million years ago would be a different question than whether the Mediterranean "existed".
I mean, they were indeed land bridges, but there was already a sea there. I apologize for the wrong information.
 
Dec 2011
4,718
Iowa USA
#39
No current thinking is the sea dried up 6 to 5 million years ago, then re flooded when the strait of Gibraltar was breached
Hmmmmmm.

"Going to have to go ahead and disagree with you there" (as in the Mike Judge movie)

If the era you have provided for "dried up" was much closer to the formation of the Himalaya Range, then I'd probe for more info, but 6 million years would not have been the geologic moment to expect minimum depth for the Med.

last thought: I'm not disputing that the connection to the Atlantic at Gibraltar is recent, and if research dates the connection to the Atlantic at about 6 million, the rest of our back-and-forth is apparently more about semantics. ("dried up" on its face reads differently than "low depth of the sea with respect to geologic time")
 
Last edited:

Similar History Discussions