PDA

View Full Version : Modern Human 400,000 years old?



djones520
12-28-2010, 05:40 AM
AP Story unfortunately. The one I found is under World on FoxNews.

But, an Israeli research team found teeth that they believe belong to modern homo sapien sapiens (us) that have dated back to 400,000 years old. If this turns out to be true, it nearly doubles the age that paleoanthropology dates us with.

Teeth are the most common fossil that turns up, but they're also some of the hardest to use to classify the specific species that they belonged to.

There is some debate if the teeth belong to us, or Neanderthals. But could be a huge find if it turns out they are ours.

hampshirebrit
12-28-2010, 12:01 PM
This can't be right. I have it on good authority that the earth (and thus humanity) is only around 7,000 - 8,000 years old, at the very most.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-28-2010, 12:02 PM
This can't be right. I have it on good authority that the earth, and thus humanity is only around 7,000 - 8,000 years old, at the very most.

6,000 years old. Any older date is a lie brought up from the very deepest bowels of Hell.

hampshirebrit
12-28-2010, 12:03 PM
6,000 years old. Any older date is a lie brought up from the very deepest bowels of Hell.

Ooops. Sorry, my bad.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
12-28-2010, 12:16 PM
Ooops. Sorry, my bad.

Say a Hail Mary and you shall be forgiven.

Novaheart
12-28-2010, 12:38 PM
This can't be right. I have it on good authority that the earth (and thus humanity) is only around 7,000 - 8,000 years old, at the very most.

I keep telling the Out Of Africa folks that their fragile egos hang from a hair, that one day a discovery will undo all of their beliefs. I for one, looked forward to the ice cap melting for I feel certain that the origin of civilization is the Arctic.

Novaheart
12-28-2010, 12:39 PM
This can't be right. I have it on good authority that the earth (and thus humanity) is only around 7,000 - 8,000 years old, at the very most.

You have to believe in science to understand science.

hampshirebrit
12-28-2010, 12:58 PM
I keep telling the Out Of Africa folks that their fragile egos hang from a hair, that one day a discovery will undo all of their beliefs. I for one, looked forward to the ice cap melting for I feel certain that the origin of civilization is the Arctic.

Modern DNA profiling has all humankind originating from East Africa. This would seem to me to be the most logical and climatically favourable point of origin.

I am not sure if you are serious in what you post above or not (I tend to assume you jest), but clearly neither of our polar regions at any point in the earth's earlier history would have been conducive to survival of any new species that was not naturally inclined to prosper in such a climate without the benefit of advanced technology, as ours clearly is not.

Do you have any hypotheses to offer up in support of your claim?

Novaheart
12-28-2010, 01:33 PM
Modern DNA profiling has all humankind originating from East Africa. This would seem to me to be the most logical and climatically favourable point of origin.

I am not sure if you are serious in what you post above or not (I tend to assume you jest), but clearly neither of our polar regions at any point in the earth's earlier history would have been conducive to survival of any new species that was not naturally inclined to prosper in such a climate without the benefit of advanced technology, as ours clearly is not.

Do you have any hypotheses to offer up in support of your claim?

There are a number of variant theories out there, all of which are heresy to the Greatness of African in History orthodoxy. Saying that all human life originated in one place, and we know what that place is, and that's final is not only not scientific, it's annoying to listen to... especially when it doesn't make sense.

Orange peel theory actually explains how the Arctic was once tropical.


Silliness aside, look at a map of the Arctic without the ice. It is the naval of the world. All of the world peoples have stories which place themselves where they are for all time. So either they are all wrong, or there is another explanation. If civilization begins at the top of the world, and we look at a map of the top of the world, we see what a very small world it would be. All the largest land masses are but a hop skip and a canoe ride away from each other. It would be quite possible for all the people on the shores to move down the continents slowly, each believing that his people had always been exactly where they were.

I'm not sure how these academicians claim to know for sure that human life radiates from Africa and that an ancient core sample didn't migrate to Africa, but I do know that academicians and anthropologists have a nasty habit of designing and defining their position statements, and then sidelining anything that doesn't fit in with it and labeling such things "isolates".

hampshirebrit
12-28-2010, 01:39 PM
There are a number of variant theories out there, all of which are heresy to the Greatness of African in History orthodoxy. Saying that all human life originated in one place, and we know what that place is, and that's final is not only not scientific, it's annoying to listen to... especially when it doesn't make sense.

Orange peel theory actually explains how the Arctic was once tropical.


Silliness aside, look at a map of the Arctic without the ice. It is the naval of the world. All of the world peoples have stories which place themselves where they are for all time. So either they are all wrong, or there is another explanation. If civilization begins at the top of the world, and we look at a map of the top of the world, we see what a very small world it would be. All the largest land masses are but a hop skip and a canoe ride away from each other. It would be quite possible for all the people on the shores to move down the continents slowly, each believing that his people had always been exactly where they were.

I'm not sure how these academicians claim to know for sure that human life radiates from Africa and that an ancient core sample didn't migrate to Africa, but I do know that academicians and anthropologists have a nasty habit of designing and defining their position statements, and then sidelining anything that doesn't fit in with it and labeling such things "isolates".

Not saying you're wrong, but I would say a couple of things:


that current DNA sequencing does put our origins back to East Africa and not the Arctic. It might be flawed, but that's the best we have based on scientific evidence.
that most major land-masses currently separated were connected.
that the climate in East Africa is likely to have been far more conducive to the survival of intelligent lifeforms than that of any polar region


There is more empirical evidence in support of the somewhat mockingly named "out of Africa" idea than there is in support of any polar regional origin.


Orange peel theory actually explains how the Arctic was once tropical.

Not at all. It proposes. It does not explain. Don't mistake either proposal for explanation, nor explanation for proof.

Novaheart
12-28-2010, 01:47 PM
Not saying you're wrong, but I would say a couple of things:


that current DNA sequencing does put our origins back to East Africa and not the Arctic. It might be flawed, but that's the best we have based on scientific evidence.
that most major land-masses currently separated were connected.
that the climate in East Africa is likely to have been far more conducive to the survival of intelligent lifeforms than that of any polar region


There is more empirical evidence in support of the somewhat mockingly named "out of Africa" idea than there is in support of any polar regional origin.

As far as I know, I am the only person who believes human civilization began in the Arctic. The author of the orange peel theory believed it may have been Central America. He believe that certain of the ancient buildings in Central America were actually 40,000 years old, and that those to whom we attribute the culture which created those buildings were actually squatters who came much later. He believed that the pyramids of Central America were built by actual Egyptians, who then fled when the skin of the Earth shifted.

So if you have the people "from East Africa" actually being from Central America, and picking up and rapidly moving to Africa, and then squatters coming from Asia much much later, you would get the effect of humanity coming out of Africa. It might also explain the Aborigine fossils in Brazil.

Novaheart
12-28-2010, 01:49 PM
Not at all. It proposes. It does not explain.

There you go , getting all British on me.

hampshirebrit
12-28-2010, 02:37 PM
There you go , getting all British on me.

Yup. That's me, and that's what I do. It might piss some folk off from time to time, but you're likely to be stuck with it here, until otherwise notified. :D

Hey, great if you really are the only proponent of The Arctic Origins of Mankind, good for you. I think it's a bonkers idea, but if you have any cogent counters to that, then have at them, by all means.

It's a nasty cold winter here, and god knows I could use a laugh.