"Out of Africa" Theory Called Into Question By Originator 169
Amiga Trombone writes "Christopher Stringer is one of the world's foremost paleoanthropologists. He is a founder and most powerful advocate of the leading theory concerning our evolution: Recent African Origin or 'Out of Africa.' He now calls the theory into question: 'I'm thinking a lot about species concepts as applied to humans, about the "Out of Africa" model, and also looking back into Africa itself. I think the idea that modern humans originated in Africa is still a sound concept. Behaviorally and physically, we began our story there, but I've come around to thinking that it wasn't a simple origin. Twenty years ago, I would have argued that our species evolved in one place, maybe in East Africa or South Africa. There was a period of time in just one place where a small population of humans became modern, physically and behaviourally. Isolated and perhaps stressed by climate change, this drove a rapid and punctuational origin for our species. Now I don't think it was that simple, either within or outside of Africa.'"
I wonder if the Oscars will get stripped. (Score:1, Informative)
I don't care what they say. It was a good movie.
Sounds like a true scientist (Score:5, Insightful)
From TFA:
But we're having to re-evaluate [the Out-of-Africa model] now because genetic data suggest that the modern humans who came out of Africa about 60,000 years ago probably interbred with Neanderthals, first of all, and then some of them later on interbred with another group of people called the Denisovans, over in south eastern Asia.
Nice to see some theory re-evaluation in practice. It is the only way to reach the truth.
Re:Sounds like a true scientist (Score:5, Insightful)
This is why science is awesome. The very same guy that advocated the "Out of Africa" theory, circled back in the face of more evidence and is re-evaluating. He's not so prideful to say he was possibly wrong, or partially wrong, or mostly right but needing a few tweaks. He has no reason to feel shame, as generally no scientist should as long as they are doing good work. I applaud Mr. Stringer.
There was a line in the movie "Chain Reaction" where the lead scientist says, "We learned something very important today. We learned another way this doesn't work." or something to that effect. That is also what makes science awesome. Learning what doesn't work is almost as important as learning what does.
Every time I see something like this, I get that "What am I doing with my life?" feeling and start thinking I need to get out of my particular field of IT and start contributing to the body of human knowledge. Computational Materials Science, here I come!
Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)
Although completely unrelated, but a similar circle-back: Roe in Roe v Wade.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Although completely unrelated, but a similar circle-back: Roe in Roe v Wade.
Um... no. Not at all. The complete opposite, in fact.
The case of Norma McCorvey [wikipedia.org] (AKA "Jane Roe" of Roe v Wade), is clearly not one of rational reflection upon the discovery of new evidence. From her own words, it is painfully obvious that her radical change of heart was due to a series of emotional appeals impressed upon her while she was in a highly vulnerable psychological state. In desperation, she found religion (after growing up in a non-practicing family, some sources claiming she was actually an athe
Re: (Score:1)
Scientists (not this case) can prove some of the most oscuratist, closed-minded dicks. Sigh.
Re: (Score:2)
<blockquote>
This is why science is awesome. The very same guy that advocated the "Out of Africa" theory, circled back in the face of more evidence and is re-evaluating.
You've missed the down-side to this... The old theory was wrong... Any decision making or thought-processes based on it are invalidated... All the school-children taught this theory as a fact have been indoctrinated with misinformation. There's no reason to believe the new theory isn't going to be invalidated down the road.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why science is awesome. The very same guy that advocated the "Out of Africa" theory, circled back in the face of more evidence and is re-evaluating.
You've missed the down-side to this... The old theory was wrong... Any decision making or thought-processes based on it are invalidated... All the school-children taught this theory as a fact have been indoctrinated with misinformation. There's no reason to believe the new theory isn't going to be invalidated down the road. It's perpetually a "best guess" getting passed off as fact, no matter how incomplete the evidence.
Yes, and the whole point is that we should be intelligent enough to accept that we might have to re-evaluate our understanding of the world in the face of new evidence, and that any information presented to us may not be 100 % accurate. Does that help?
Re: (Score:2)
"Less wrong" may be true in some cases, but not at all in many others.
His example of a flat versus round earth is not a scientific theory... it's facts based on observation. I could put together a theory which says the earth is flat, and back it up with solid equations and supporting evidence, and NOBODY will believe it. But observing a fact doesn't require science, so this really isn't as all relevant to the scientific method.
Try an example like early medicine... It was in a horrible state for a long,
Re: (Score:3)
Genuine question.
I wonder why the one-origin theory is so prevalent in science. I never really understood it at university. I get that so much of our DNA is similar.
human origin - we must have been formed at one location.
first organism - must have been created once and then multiplied and diversified.
I never understood why it had to be a single origin. Couldn't a particular evolution or event happen at multiple locations or multiple stages of merging?
Re: (Score:2)
Couldn't a particular evolution or event happen at multiple locations or multiple stages of merging?
Heh, I don't have any hard data, and this is not my field, but Asimov pondered on that question (Foundation series). The chances of life (or evolutionary events) sprouting in many locations simultaneously must be very thin. It seems plausible, but it is still science fiction and not science. Maybe an expert can enlighten us...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As for Asimov's suggesting multiple evolutionary events being unlikely, i don't think i'd agree given what we now know (beyon
Re: (Score:3)
There are ways to determine (with a certain degree of accuracy) whether something was a case of parallel unrelated evolution, or comes from the same root. Due to the way DNA works [wikipedia.org], there are different ways to encode the same information. If two species encode the sequence in the same exact sequence, or nearly so, it is highly unlikely that it had just accidentally came up to be that way separately from both of them.
Re:Sounds like a true scientist (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, if the vast majority of scientists believe that a particular theory is the best explanation of something, and it has been tested and not found wanting, then if you want to present an alternative it doesn't mean that you are banned from doing so, it just means you had better have some pretty good evidence.
Also, the people who want to prove that there are different species of human being generally do so on the basis that (a) their species is the best one and (b) all other species are morally, intellectually or in some other way fundamentally inferior.
Re: (Score:2)
I never understood why it had to be a single origin. Couldn't a particular evolution or event happen at multiple locations or multiple stages of merging?
A single evolutionary change could arise in different places. But after a while, there would be a whole lot of other changes too. The odds of them ALL being the same are impossible. So you won't get identical creatures arising in different places. Similarl though is quite possible. And whether they are able to interbreed, to be considered the same species, depends on how far diverged they are from a common ancestor.
Obviously the parents don't have to be identical genetically to crossbreed. but the more di
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
, it takes a great deal of divergence, much more than is present in modern Humans, before there are fertility problems.
Well, we aren't talking about "modern humans". We're all the same species and interfertile, having wiped out our near relatives.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. Political correctness is the censorship of truths that expose the tactics the power elite use to more permanently enslave the rest of us.
Re: (Score:3)
Someone is enslaving white supremacists? And didn't invite me?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Cannabis discussion is in another thread.
Re: (Score:2)
Another genuine question...
What? I notice the many responses to my question is all politics. I wasn't expecting this. Can I get a bit of background here?
From the context, I am guessing that if it is shown that there were multiple origins, then it wouldn't jive with 'we are all one' in some sense, and that would be politically incorrect?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Sounds like a true scientist (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the real answer is twofold: firstly a single genesis is much simpler and people like to cling to occams razor as though it is a scientific doctrine and not a blunt problem solving rule of thumb. Most of historical theory is rife with the simplest most cut down possible version of events. The second reason is that the idea of conquering and out competing another species appeals more to most people's pride than the idea of interspecies breeding. Neither of these are particular good reasons for supporting a scientific theory but where ancient history is concerned evidence is much scarcer than most people think, so minor influences like this can sway some people.
It is especially ironic that according to most of the paleontologists in the world the purest 'aryan' race is actually the Iranians.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
*politics is the art of keeping good social relations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And as every reader of this thread now knows, just being a suspected racist is a capital crime.
Why so touchy?
The fact that you can communicate in whole sentences with other people means you're probably not a racist, as they are all extremely stupid people.
However, it is always wise to remember that if you ask the sort of questions that genuine racists ask, you are in danger of confusing people.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that you can communicate in whole sentences with other people means you're probably not a racist, as they are all extremely stupid people.
This isn't true at all. Some of the brightest minds of the 19th century were avowed racists, and I'm talking about discerning races among people whose skin colors vary less than the shades of a Saltine cracker. There was a lot of discussion in Europe about classifying the different European races; the Franks, the Gauls, and the Celts; and about which ones were really the Aryans. Funny thing, authors of each race would ascribe all the same positive traits to themselves, and all the negative traits to the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Why has the out of africa THEORY been presented as fact despite the growing evidence against it? Why have all other theories been so violently opposed?
Simple reason!
...
My mod points just expired. Can someone mod this guy and all children down (including my own post).
To mitigate the poster's obvious paranoia I would like to offer the following explanation as to why his post is misleading and inaccurate and should be modded down in the interests of keeping facts at the forefront of discussion and leaving knee-jerk dogmatism and prejudice to the thousands of other websites dedicated to them.
1. The writer of the above post clearly didn't read the article (yes I know he is
Re: (Score:3)
The theoretical interbreeding of Homo Sapiens with Homo Neanderthalensis (in the Middle East) was a separate and non sequential event with the theoretical Homo Denisova interbreeding (in Asia) with a different (later) branch of Homo Sapiens.
Re: (Score:2)
I had posited this idea back in my High school Genetics class in a report I wrote about Human evolution. I Discussed the Multi-regional theory and the out of Africa theory and to me, the Multi-regional theory was absurd on its face and the Out of Africa theory had a much better model but could not, IMO explain how the different human populations evolved to physically adapt to their environments so quickly. I used inter-breeding as a mode to allow for out of Africa but also account for the adaptations each h
Re: (Score:3)
but could not, IMO explain how the different human populations evolved to physically adapt to their environments so quickly.
Evolution of the (mostly) superficial adaptations that distinguish human populations happens faster than might seem intuitive.
As a general rule, human populations evolve a skin color appropriate to their latitude. We can date some migrations as far back as the neolithic period, and when you look at those populations and their current skin color you come up with maybe only a few thousand years for full adaptation.
Re: (Score:2)
I was in High school (mid 90's)....what do you want from me?
Re: (Score:2)
Power Law in Effect (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with pinpointing human origins is we keep digging where 1) human remains are close to the surface, making them easy to dig up, with yearly rains washing away more and more making it even easier, and 2) the conditions for fossilization are highly salient. We very well could have come from environs where fossilization processes are nearly impossible, leaving no trace of our ancestors.
We also like to dig where early humans leave behind stone tools. We don't dig where humans uses wood tools, because they fossilize way less often. It's hard to study what's not left behind! However, it's probable more humans used wood tools earlier and longer.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty sure the actual problem is that there is no 'pinpoint' of human origins.
Re: (Score:3)
We have plenty of remains dug out that long predate any evidence of stone tools.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem with pinpointing human origins is we keep digging where 1) human remains are close to the surface, making them easy to dig up, with yearly rains washing away more and more making it even easier,
See the cave sites in France. Actually, see cave sites across the world, where excavation involves chipping rock away to find the remains. It's nearer to sculpting and excavation. That's hardly easy, nowhere near the surface, and is standard practice in paleo excavations.
2) the conditions for fossilization are highly salient. We very well could have come from environs where fossilization processes are nearly impossible, leaving no trace of our ancestors.
The burden of proof is on you for this point. You need to give the reasons why you think humans were present in a specific area, and yet their remains (bone, stone, etc) are not present. You ma
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First to the outright factual error: wood and stone tools are used by our near primate relatives, so wood as tools as nothing to say about human origins. Zero. By the time their are humans, stone tools are in the toolkit.
Second to the appeal to "absence of evidence is evidence" fallacy: one doesn't have to find anything from the point of origin to start to find where it is, in a manner similar to triangulation. Each find presents data, and when a rate of
Misleading headline (Score:2, Insightful)
Reality is more complex than humans just appearing in one location in Africa? That doesn't really question ANYTHING about the theory, but instead just suggests a refinement. This is essentially a non-story that only acts as fuel for dumb creationists who don't read more than a headline.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
And on the third day, god created the Remington bolt action rifle, so that man could fight the dinosaurs. And the homosexuals.
Amen.
My guess is that Slashdot editors evolved from a completely different species of proto-human with limited cognitive capacity due to their thick brows and heavy, bony skull plates, which constrained the growth of their brains. This explains many things about their inability to create a useful headline, or edit a summary properly - it's like "infinite monkeys on infinite typewri
Re: (Score:2)
You wouldn't happen to operate a church do you? Because this sounds AWESOME. Especially, if you offer a large over-salted popcorn and 50 ounces of soda with every collection plate contribution over 15 dollars. 3-D glasses would be a nice touch too.
Re: (Score:2)
We just started our own religion ! In the east it is a sin to eat, in the west it is a sin to have sex. In our new religion it is a sin to breathe ;)
I can see the headline now:
"New Religion Lasts For Just Six Minutes"
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming a religion that practices its doctrine. Do you have any historical examples?
"Heaven's Gate!"
"Heaven's Gate was an American UFO religion based in San Diego, California, founded in the early 1970s and led by Marshall Applewhite (1931–1997) and Bonnie Nettles (1928–1985).[1] On March 26, 1997, police discovered the bodies of 39 members of the group who had committed suicide[2] in order to reach what they believed was an alien space craft which was following the Comet Hale-Bopp, which was at its brightest."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(religious_group) [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Headlines and summaries have a finite length; it's a little difficult to express a complex idea in one paragraph. If you're really interested in getting the full story, RTFA.
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone actually doubt the very fact that higher primates evolved in Africa? If not, then the headline is an attempt at being sensational.
IIRC there was recently some noise about some of the apes evolving outside Africa. Presumably because their ancestors migrated out earlier.
Re:Misleading headline (Score:5, Interesting)
There are multiple theories that really are different
1) H. Sapiens evolved in Africa, travelled from there, overtaking and outcompeting (or outright killing) previous hominids who earlier left Africa.
2) A mostly-modern H. Sapiens evolved in Africa, travelled from there, and interbred with/absorbed existing hominid populations (by some definitions these were also H. Sapiens) who had earlier left Africa. This one isn't so different, but it is different.
3) Multiregional. Earlier hominids (not H. Sapiens) leave Africa in multiple expansions. These various groups evolve, run into each other, and interbreed, and continue migrating (including back to Africa). H. Sapiens emerges as a product of this global interbreeding and evolution. This is obviously a very different theory.
Evidence of modern humans having some Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA casts a lot of doubt on the first theory.
Re: (Score:2)
In what logical argument can you construct a taxonomic or genetic genetic tree that does not have the modern population of the planet as part of a single species?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, all humans are the same species. That doesn't mean we're all the same race.
Well the dickhead GP shouldn't have used the word "species" then should he?
Re: (Score:2)
.....
Did you read the GP? He is claiming the races are different species.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This has nothing to do with "creationists", and the story isn't for them. You just took the opportunity to bash a bunch of people who did nothing to you because that's what you guys do whenever you get the chance.
People who have absurd and dangerous ideas should be called out on them as frequently and loudly as possible.
If you let terrorists, racists, fascists, fundamentalists and so on go on believing in their bollocks without being questioned, you are failing in your duty as a civlised human being.
Re: (Score:2)
I bash the flat-earthers when I get half a chance, too. Some people deserve a little healthy ridicule.
The difference is that flat-earthers are just wrong. They are not dangerous.
So in other words... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not challenging the usefulness of refining the science, but such refinements are often MUCH smaller than the margin of error of the layman's knowledge of the subject in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, the whole point is moot without a more specific definition of "human." No two humans ha
Re: (Score:2)
Again, the whole point is moot without a more specific definition of "human." No two humans have identical DNA (even identical twins probably have a mutation here or there). So it is a matter of degree. Although, by the most standard I can think of - "able to mate with people currently living" - I'd be willing to bet you're completely wrong.
I started to reply to his longer screed above, until I got to the conspiracy theory that "they" are trying to extinguish the "European race". He's either a troll or a more-than-usually paranoid nutter.
Re: (Score:2)
Africans are the pre humans who stayed in africa essentially.
As evidenced by South Africa, if you take white people and put them in Africa long enough they generally become arseholes too. My theory is that zebras are influencing the behaviour of the more powerful humans negatively using some form of as yet unresearched ultrasonic pulse emanating from inside their nasal cavity, in a bid to distract them from the the ubiquitous availability of tasty zebra meat by causing them to kill each other. Those silly zebras didn't count on the fact that humans tend to just bury
I just watched a 4 season series (Score:4, Funny)
on humans and it showed them coming in on space ships.
Re:I just watched a 4 season series (Score:4, Funny)
Were they shaped like DC-8s?
Re: (Score:1)
The historicity of that documentary has come into doubt in recent years; at the very least, current refinements suggest there was likely more then one notable space ship, and it was likely thye practiced a proto-democractic theocracy insteads of full-blown representative democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh that must have been on the History channel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No it was on Pirate Bay
Respect! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not to mention, when those theories have significant political consequences. The "out of Africa" theory was very convenient for people who deny racial differences.
The reason that people deny racial differences is that they are overwhelmingly trivial, if not non-existent, and add nothing to human understanding. Stereotyping people because of their skin colour or cultural/religious background only appeals to people who want to be able to shit on those people in some way.
I hate Biology (Score:1, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Species is a qualitative, not a quantitative definition. The reason for that is due to the fact that it is a taxonomic category.
Perhaps some day we can understand enough about genetics and proteomics to reclassify organisms according to their genetic or preteomic drift. That would be quantifiable.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't need to have a strict definition of species to do science. The notion of species is just an arbitrary category that works reasonably well in most cases you're going to study, but categorization is something you do for your own convenience.
To give a simple example, you could arbitrarily categorize chemical elements into various groups according to perceived characteristics. Even if you later found out that there is some fuzziness between the groups, it does not make your study of the properties of
Re: (Score:2)
Not everything can be expressed as 1 or 0.
Re: (Score:2)
Here is a good example. Lions and tigers are considered separate species, yet they can interbreed and produce ligers and tigons. And, this morning I saw a newscast saying a liger had bred with a lion producing an offspring, so apparently ligers are fertile. This should suggest that lions and tigers are not a separate species (My head hurts now).
Re: (Score:2)
The parent is largely right, but from a pessimistic viewpoint.
1) The species concept, as taught in high school, of "a group of individuals that can interbreed & produce viable offspring", is a gross oversimplification.
2) Individual organisms lie along a continuum. Humans draw boundary lines on that continuum and define a "species" as the individuals that lie between two adjacent boundary lines.
3) Why? Because (a) that's what we like to do, and (b) it's often useful.
4) Why (b)? Because if groups of organ
I never understood the traditional species concept (Score:4, Insightful)
A species is rarely singular, like a line or even like a river. It's more as if there was a continuum, like a flooded plain, and what we see is mainly determined by our own narrow views of organisms (or their remains) in spatial, temporal or cognitive terms. Simple things like the fact that wolves and coyotes are so close genetically that they should be called one species. Or many large cats. Or earlier subspecies of humans.
Paleontologists only see the world as if it was lit up by small flashbulbs every now and then. Yes we've seen a lot of snapshots but how much is that compared to billions of years of evolution all over the Earth?
Re: (Score:2)
Humans love to categorize. Square and round things go together. Things with four legs vs things with six legs go together. Same basic principle.
Of course, in practice, there is a continuum, stretching from specimen to specimen, and also back in time. But sometimes it's convenient to draw lines to limit your area of study.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought about it a little more. The traditional species concept is probably a holdover from a pre-scientific era, basically a biblical concept.
If God did it, it's a species. If man did it or if it was observable how it came to be then it's not a species. Hence wolf and coyote are different species, while dobermann and chihuahua aren't.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh?
I think your tinfoil hat is too tight, restricting blood flow to your brain.
Re: (Score:2)
Well mangling "theory" and "fact" in your first sentence shows that you're not too familiar with the scientific method. I should have stopped reading at that point.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey... dumb ass creationist.... you better hold onto something....I think the THEORY of gravity might be wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
I love how that crap is modded insightful.
To date, the evidence is growing for the Out of Africa theory. TFA is about the argument on whether humans have spread from Africa once and everywhere, essentially "already evolved", or whether they have spread in several different waves separated by intervals of tens of thousands of years (and possibly even hundreds), and then those waves had some parallel evolution and separately interbred with some other branches of Homo, and later reintegrated through migration,
this is science at it's best (Score:2)
Re:Duh! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Duh! (Score:4, Insightful)
Pro tip:
Phrases like "the earth is trying defend itself" and "starving the earth of resources" put you in the crazies column.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Pro tip:
Phrases like "the earth is trying defend itself" and "starving the earth of resources" put you in the crazies column.
But you'd still be qualified to be Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy [zombietime.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Pro tip:
Phrases like "the earth is trying defend itself" and "starving the earth of resources" put you in the crazies column.
Well, I just call it dumbing it down. Yes we know the earth isnt literally defending itself like a cute little soldier. But the consequence of us taking more than we put in is our own death one way or another, and only an idiot won't accept that.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have a problem with anthropomorphism. The way I figure it, we're primates that exhibit behaviors, social and anti-social, seen in many other species.
Observing reflections of ourselves throughout nature seems appropriate and accurate.
Re: (Score:3)
In ancient times, the Conquering King said to the Conquered King "Look, my troops are burning your city to the ground!" The Conquered King retorted "Look, your troops are burning YOUR city to the ground!"
I think the original had Croesus (Mr "As rich as ...") playing Conquered, but the story is probably older than that.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
They believe all of humanity came from Adam and Eve, a couple of thousand years ago.
And that the Garden of Eden is somewhere north of Amarillo.
Right, that's Miss Eden's cathouse just off the interstate about 5 miles north of Armadillo.
Re: (Score:2)
Evidence suggests that today's modern humans did in fact evolve from a relatively small group of people (I've seen estimates in the 5-20,000 range)
Oh, sure, put the minimum at five! That handily dismisses the claims of those radical creationists who pose only two at the beginning! You see the bias, here, Slashdot?! Do you!?!? ;)