×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

An Asian Origin For Human Ancestors?

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the different-neighborhoods dept.

Science 125

InfiniteZero writes "Researchers agree that our immediate ancestors, the upright walking apes, arose in Africa. But the discovery of a new primate that lived about 37 million years ago in the ancient swamplands of Myanmar bolsters the idea that the deep primate family tree that gave rise to humans is rooted in Asia. If true, the discovery suggests that the ancestors of all monkeys, apes, and humans—known as the anthropoids—arose in Asia and made the arduous journey to the island continent of Africa almost 40 million years ago."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

125 comments

lol (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40238937)

Niggers and spics. Kikes, too!

Re:lol (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40238953)

You need to study your racial slurs.

Re:lol (-1, Offtopic)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 2 years ago | (#40239179)

You need to study your racial slurs

+1

Let's start petitioning for giga funding for a comprehensive study on the way racial slurs work, plus ways to improve on the effectiveness of racial slurs

Re:lol (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40238955)

Jethro, get offuh Slashdot! Gonna be late for the Klan meetun!

Re:lol (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40239125)

How many niggers we lynching tonight?

I agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40239067)

I've always felt humans are one of those "freak animals" that develop on isolated islands like platypus or finches with giant beaks or whatever. We were probably trapped on some remote island and developed these giant freak brains and then eventually managed to escape and spread out across the planet.

Re:I agree (3, Interesting)

wisty (1335733) | about 2 years ago | (#40239259)

Humans aren't that freaky. We are pretty much identical to chimps, with slightly better communication hardware.

Perhaps complex communication triggered divergent evolution. Humans (well, proto-human talking chimps) work well together, but not with normal chimps. Normal chimps had advantages though - they could communicate far faster. Simple communication is a good thing if all you want to say is "LEOPARD!!!!".

Once we'd diverged, the talking apes found they were better off in the savanna and beaches than the forest (where speed is more important than strategy).

Re:I agree (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 2 years ago | (#40239337)

yelling "run" seems to be to swift and simple enough

Re:I agree (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40239463)

Actually, not yelling anything but getting the heck out of Dodge is the best strategy.

CAPTCHA = barbaric

Re:I agree (1)

foniksonik (573572) | about 2 years ago | (#40239515)

Not in a social setting. The hero who saves all the young females by yelling run/danger/leopard becomes the center of attention and gets all kinds of benefits. Extra grooming, food treats, more sex and offspring.

Pretty good deal if you ask me.

Re:I agree (2)

sexconker (1179573) | about 2 years ago | (#40241095)

Not in a social setting. The hero who saves all the young females by yelling run/danger/leopard becomes the center of attention and gets all kinds of benefits. Extra grooming, food treats, more sex and offspring.

Pretty good deal if you ask me.

The guy who gets sex is the big guy who beats on his women. Just like in ye olde cave days.
Nice guys finish last, white knights get friend zoned, etc.

Re:I agree (1)

Phrogman (80473) | about 2 years ago | (#40242469)

So nothings changed then. In my HS the guys with all the girls paying attention to them were the biggest and stupidest assholes :P

Re:I agree (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40239761)

Humans aren't that freaky. We are pretty much identical to chimps, with slightly better communication hardware.
And better haircuts. Don't forget that!

Re:I agree (2)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#40240135)

Humans are physically pretty weird for primates. We're the only ones built for walking on two legs efficiently. The communication thing is one of degree as much as kind: many primates vocalize a lot and communicate a lot.

Perhaps complex communication triggered divergent evolution. Humans (well, proto-human talking chimps) work well together, but not with normal chimps. Normal chimps had advantages though - they could communicate far faster. Simple communication is a good thing if all you want to say is "LEOPARD!!!!".

Or we're descended from the few who understood when one of the walking, talking apes came back into the forest and said, "DUDE! There's a whole f***ing WORLD out there!"

Re:I agree (2, Informative)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 2 years ago | (#40240347)

Humans aren't that freaky. We are pretty much identical to chimps, with slightly better communication hardware.

Actually, I think that idea has pretty much been discredited with the discovery of "Ardi", the oldest direct human ancestor ever found, that was actually more like a human than a chimp. If anything, chimps evolved MORE from that common ancestor than humans did, despite the similarity in the genome.

Re:I agree (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40240459)

Humans aren't that freaky. We are pretty much identical to chimps, with slightly better communication hardware.

And, believe it or not *enormously* better impulse control

Re:I agree (2)

jedwidz (1399015) | about 2 years ago | (#40240871)

Neoteny accounts for a lot of the differences between chimps and humans.

In a sense that's not even divergent evolution, as humans are just discarding the specializations that chimps develop as they mature, rather than replacing them with a different set of specializations.

Skull question: Which two of these skulls are the most similar?

Re:I agree (1)

meglon (1001833) | about 2 years ago | (#40241035)

proto-human talking chimps

So, you're saying that Lancelot Link was THE MAN!... quite a while before there were men....

Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... (4, Informative)

BoRegardless (721219) | about 2 years ago | (#40239079)

as we all came from a single cell organism.

Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... (1)

k(wi)r(kipedia) (2648849) | about 2 years ago | (#40239121)

...and further back than that: we came from a single incredibly dense point of matter.

Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... (0)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 2 years ago | (#40239303)

...and further back than that: we came from a single incredibly dense point of matter.

.... and if we go further back than that: all these came from literally nothing

Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40239389)

Its turtles all the way down!

Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40239629)

No, if we try to go further back we fail. We do not currently have enough information to do more than suggest what happened before the "big bang" it is not like there is much left of "before" (if time even works such that that word means something in this context) that event. Current thinking is that there may have been something, but what is anyone guess.

Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... (1)

dark12222000 (1076451) | about 2 years ago | (#40240045)

"Further back" when applied to "The big bang" may not even make sense. Time may not have had meaning or existed prior to the Big Bang. Though, this is all theory.

Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#40240165)

Or to put it another way time is a metric that exists in the universe and just like space, it doesn't exist apart from the universe... as far as we can tell from in here.

Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40241221)

So how can an event (creation) occur if there were no time in which it could occur? That's a realllllyyyyyy bizarre thought. There was forever of no-time and then an event happened where time was created and stuff could happen? There are so many contadictions in that sentence, but can it be expressed another way?

Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... (1)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#40241693)

So how can an event (creation) occur if there were no time in which it could occur? That's a realllllyyyyyy bizarre thought. There was forever of no-time and then an event happened where time was created and stuff could happen?

No, there was a time, or not-time, or however it may be described, that we can't describe in any meaningful manner because it was not part of this universe. Whatever is in the metaverse, or whatever we use to describe what is "outside" cannot be described by the rules of this universe. It is literally undefinable from "in here." It sounds circular, but you can't describe things you cannot see or measure.

It's like trying to describe what goes on at the singularity of a black hole. You can't.

--
BMO

Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40240315)

"Further back" when applied to "The big bang" may not even make sense. Time may not have had meaning or existed prior to the Big Bang. Though, this is all theory.

Actually everything since the Big Bang (or shortly thereafter) is theory. Everything before is conjecture.

Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... (1)

Curunir_wolf (588405) | about 2 years ago | (#40240359)

I thought it was caused by a collision of M-Branes.

Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40240843)

Sure, I like to believe that too. However, string theory and hence m theory are nothing more than wild speculation. There is currently no evidence that it is correct, nor are there any experiments that we know we can do yet to find out. String theory is beautiful and I hope that it is true. However, you can't go around calling it fact until you have a lot of experimental evidence.

Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40239879)

LOL
signed :The Prime Mover.

Re:Hmm, I thought they said Ocean Origin... (1)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about 2 years ago | (#40239603)

Do you mean the origin of life on Earth, or our human ancestors? Either way the answer is RL'YEH!

I was once a single cell organism .. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40239909)

I was once a single cell organism about 9 months before I was born.

Not so sure about that. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40239087)

Don't Africans lack something in their DNA that most other races have that we supposedly gained from banging some really hot Neanderthals back in the hairy ages?
An Asian-centric origin would seem to go against this.

Mind you, the dates aren't exactly out of order, so it could be.
A migration to and then back from Africa, then we got whatever gene it was again.
Or maybe there was absolutely no migration back out of Africa, outside of the few groups that traveled around and lived around that area.

I'm not sure of the weather patterns back then.
The only weather I am sure of was around the past 100 thousand years.

Certainly interesting.

Re:Not so sure about that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40239219)

You sure typed a lot for not having read the summary at all.

Re:Not so sure about that. (2)

swalve (1980968) | about 2 years ago | (#40239227)

It's not a lack, so much, but that white folks have Neanderthal bits in their DNA, where Africans are more purely Homo Sapiens. The AC above made a good point, the human race probably evolved a big brain, got the itch to travel and seeded the world with proto humans, who then stayed relatively stationary, who then evolved into genetically semi-compatible Neanderthal, Denova, African and I think there were others. There were probably plenty of races of these, and it's quite possibly where our mythology of trolls, hobbits and other weird human-likes came from.

Re:Not so sure about that. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40242425)

In the case of Neanderthals, it is very possible that there was enough genetic similarity that cross breeding could happen even though technically they were different species.

Other examples of this can be found with other mammals such as Horses and Donkeys reproducing to produce Mules as well as Tigers and Lions producing Ligons and Tiglons [wikipedia.org] . While such unions typically produce infertile offspring when they are of the same genus but different species (like Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthalensis), such infertility doesn't always hold true. It really is a case of incomplete speciation.

I highly doubt that genetic evolution, even convergent evolution, would allow dissimilar species to ever mate... such as Klingons and Humans or Romulans and Ferrengi. Star Trek script writers did a whole bunch of handwaving and even made up a bunch of BS to try and explain how that worked.

That other species in the Homo genus were around from time to time may be true, and it would be interesting to see just how far speciation actually happened with them as well. I'm just suggesting that there are existing mechanisms that would explain how Neanderthal DNA could end up with some people in Europe, and it wouldn't even need to be that many Neanderthals which would form the core genetic pool for that DNA.

Re:Not so sure about that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40239489)

probably more like Neanderthals raping our womens

Re:Not so sure about that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40239577)

probably more like Neanderthals raping our womens

so what are you going to do 'bout it?

Re:Not so sure about that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40239593)

probably more like Neanderthals raping our womens

Or their dirty women jumpin' our Neanderthals.

Re:Not so sure about that. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40239699)

probably more like Neanderthals raping our womens

If I was a Neanderthal, I'd be hot for fat blonde chicks.

Oceanic origin for human ancestors? (1, Interesting)

k(wi)r(kipedia) (2648849) | about 2 years ago | (#40239091)

From TFA:

Kay, however, says the scales are tipping toward an Asian origin. "We've all heard about Out-of-Africa for human origins," adds Beard. "Now we think there was an Out-of-Asia migration into Africa first."

Well, since we're tracing the origin of our species anyway, why not simply say our ancestors came from the sea? You can't get any further back than that, unless you think that life migrated from outer space [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 2 years ago | (#40239139)

Indeed. It's a ludicrous headline, typical for the kind of hyperbole of science journalism.

Humans originate from Africa. Where very ancient primates originate from is another question, and isn't all that relevant to the particular issue of human origins. This moronic story has a headline that sounds like somebody is trying to reinvoke the multi-regional hypothesis.

Shame on Slashdot. Shame on the fucking retard who wrote the article.

Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? (0)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 2 years ago | (#40239369)

Shame on Slashdot. Shame on the fucking retard who wrote the article.

How much censorship are you rooting for ?
 

Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40239467)

Indeed. It's a ludicrous headline, typical for the kind of hyperbole of science journalism.

Humans originate from Africa. Where very ancient primates originate from is another question, and isn't all that relevant to the particular issue of human origins. This moronic story has a headline that sounds like somebody is trying to reinvoke the multi-regional hypothesis.

Shame on Slashdot. Shame on the fucking retard who wrote the article.

You're a little angry about this.

Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? (2, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | about 2 years ago | (#40239675)

The headline makes no suggestion of multiregional origin. You misinterpreted it; any shame should be on you for that error.

The out-of-Africa hypothesis implies that our ancestry – back as far as we can meaningfully trace it – was entirely in Africa (back as far as that designation is also meaningful). If it turns out that our primate ancestors instead evolved elsewhere, and relocated there, that is relevant to the question of human origins, because.... it's a part of that origin.

Oh, and GTFU.

Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? (3, Interesting)

samoanbiscuit (1273176) | about 2 years ago | (#40240009)

If it turns out that our primate ancestors instead evolved elsewhere, and relocated there, that is relevant to the question of human origins, because.... it's a part of that origin.

No, you said it yourself: "as far back as we can meaningfully trace". It seems that there is some ambiguity with some of the early hominin ancestors, but basically, humans and their immediate predecessors originate from Africa. This is what happens when computer geeks think they're fully qualified to talk about paleo-anthropology or other messy science things that don't involve mathematical proofs.

Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40240211)

And this muddled non-sequitur non-explanation is what happens with self-important paleoanthropoligists try to interact with modern hominids.

Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? (3, Interesting)

samoanbiscuit (1273176) | about 2 years ago | (#40240933)

You need to read the reply below you to see why I take that tone. Also, I'm not a paleoanthropologist (bioinormatics actually), but I find it hilarious that people who know a lot about a certain domain of knowledge think they don't need to read up on another domain but throw around opinions they think are perfectly valid. Also, what I wrote is a non-sequitur only if you don't know what you are talking about and don't want to read up on the topic, which is common whenever slashdot runs an article not based on CS, Math or Physics.

Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40240677)

And which is based on four teeth from an animal the size of a chipmunk. I love it when they say they have discovered a new species of human, with reconstructions etc, when all they have is a jawbone, a piece of skull, or a few teeth. The fossil record of early humans is breathtakingly scanty in my view, and an lot of awfully long bows seem to be drawn from the available evidence.

Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#40240189)

Indeed. It's a ludicrous headline, typical for the kind of hyperbole of science journalism.

Humans originate from Africa. Where very ancient primates originate from is another question, and isn't all that relevant to the particular issue of human origins. This moronic story has a headline that sounds like somebody is trying to reinvoke the multi-regional hypothesis.

Shame on Slashdot. Shame on the fucking retard who wrote the article.

As usual, press articles reflect shallow (or completely missing) understanding of scientific concepts. A better way to describe it would be to say, "Possible Asian Origin for Primates" and go on to describe the Asian animals as "possibly the most recent common ancestors of all primates."

Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? (1)

GodfatherofSoul (174979) | about 2 years ago | (#40240349)

You're not thinking like an editor. Bullshit headlines generate clicks. Huzzah Slashdot! Huzzah authors!

Re:Oceanic origin for human ancestors? (1)

meglon (1001833) | about 2 years ago | (#40241051)

This moronic story has a headline that sounds like somebody is trying to reinvoke the multi-regional hypothesis.

Shame on Slashdot. Shame on the fucking retard who wrote the article.

You do have to agree though, that the multi-regional hypothesis does solve the one truly glaring issue with the whole "out of Africa meme".... people from New Jersey.

halfway to the dinosaurs (0)

cpu6502 (1960974) | about 2 years ago | (#40239109)

37 million years ago is a looooong time ago. More than halfway along the time dimension to the age of the dinosaurs. I'm surprised primates arose that quickly.

Re: halfway to the dinosaurs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40239497)

So which came first, the monkey or the throwing of feces?

island or continent? (0)

hguorbray (967940) | about 2 years ago | (#40239117)

make up your mind -it can't be both!

-I'm just sayin'

Re:island or continent? (2)

snookums (48954) | about 2 years ago | (#40239141)

Australia reporting in here.

Re:island or continent? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40242307)

Eurasia is bigger island than Australia. Besides, we are (and always were) at war with you, Oceania.

But, but, but... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40239137)

But the One True Profit, Dr Leaky, said humans came form Africa.

Abstract (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40239279)

In the beginning, we were all fish. Okay? Swimming around in the water. And then one day a couple of fish had a retard baby, and the retard baby was different, so it got to live. So Retard Fish goes on to make more retard babies, and then one day, a retard baby fish crawled out of the ocean with its mutant fish hands and it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this. Retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a monkey-fish-frog. And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that monkey, and that monkey had a mutant retard baby that screwed another monkey and that made you!

Re:Abstract (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 2 years ago | (#40239403)

... it had butt sex with a squirrel or something and made this. Retard frog-sqirrel, and then *that* had a retard baby which was a monkey-fish-frog. And then this monkey-fish-frog had butt sex with that ...

I think you may have skipped over a rat

They say the first mammal supposed to be a rat

They said it, not me.

I swear, I wasn't there !!
 

Re:Abstract (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40239671)

I would laugh if ,it was not for the fact that I know people who despite being quite clever in some ways are actually stupid enough to think that this is how evolution works. What makes it more interesting is working out what to do and say when someone defines evolution this way and demands that you prove it while simultaneously denying any corrections to his understanding (aside from back away slowly).

Re:Abstract (2)

jamstar7 (694492) | about 2 years ago | (#40240957)

They say the first mammal supposed to be a rat

So it is true that lawyers predate humans. I thought that was just a myth...

It's Burma not Myanmar (2, Insightful)

KiloByte (825081) | about 2 years ago | (#40239353)

Please at least use the correct name for the country. It happened 37Ma ago, the junta went rampant only in 1962. We don't use renamed months when talking about Rome by Commodus or Turkmenistan by Niyazov.

Re:It's Burma not Myanmar (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 2 years ago | (#40239481)

Ummm ...

You mean, some 37 Million Years ago, someone already christened that place with the name of "Burma" ?

Re:It's Burma not Myanmar (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40239541)

Just up the highway from Shave.

Sory! I panicked! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40240927)

37 Million Years ago, someone already christened that place with the name of "Burma" ?

OL1: Anthropoids don't come from Myanmar - they come from ...

OL2: Burma!

OL1: Burma?!!? Why'd you say 'Burma' ????

OL2: Sory! I panicked!

Re:It's Burma not Myanmar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40240003)

It's only Burma when the west has a presence inside the country. Their original name is Myanmar, something hard for westerners to pronounce, they thought Burma was easier. When you have the guns, you get to name the country.

Re:It's Burma not Myanmar (1)

busyqth (2566075) | about 2 years ago | (#40240137)

So, they can call it Myanmar in their language, and we can call it Burma in our langage.
What's the problem with that?

Re:It's Burma not Myanmar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40240499)

In the Burmese language, Burma is known as either Myanma [mjmà] or Bama [bmà]. Myanma is the written, literary name of the country, while Bama is the spoken name of the country.

So I guess you're right and wrong.

Re:It's Burma not Myanmar (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 years ago | (#40242177)

If it wasn't for "The West" it would be neither Burma nor Myanmar, it would be part of "The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere
(and written in Japanese)

The Burmese people can call their country what they want (actually they can't right now since the military is in charge (what does Aung San Suu Kyi and her followers want to call the place?)

Different languages have different names for countries - according to the French, the country in which I now reside is called Les Etats Unis, but we don't use that name, or even USA to refer to the area where the ancient Clovis people hunted 12000 years ago because it wasn't called that back then.

Anyway I just checked by typing Myanmar into Wikipedia and it came up with Burma - case closed)

We Are All...? (0)

tverbeek (457094) | about 2 years ago | (#40239579)

Wait, so instead of the slogan "We are all Africans", we might have to change it to "We are all Asian-Africans"?

Re:We Are All...? (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about 2 years ago | (#40239747)

Wait, so instead of the slogan "We are all Africans", we might have to change it to "We are all Asian-Africans"?

Inb4 someone came in and add " ... no wonder we are all so fuck-up !!! "

not true (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40239763)

There is more truth here. http://www.truthsjourney.com/creationevolution.html

Re:not true (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40240699)

why does god hate fags if he made us all in his image?

An Argument for creationists. (1)

axlr8or (889713) | about 2 years ago | (#40239799)

Now you have DONE IT!!! They will use this against us for another 40 years. Hehehe.. On the bright side, it will be ever so much fun to twist this thorn into the 'Evolutionist' side. Because you know, they just can't seem to say these little words; "I don't know for sure." Hehehe. I for one, abhore monkeys and so I believe that somewhere along the 'lemur' phase the branch containing feline DNA began developing. I hold cats and dogs in much much higher regard than our psychotic, self serving narcissistic great ape brethren. I believe my family tree originated on that side but branched off around the 'still able to lick your own balls' forking. Come to think of it, I just don't see humans coming from apes. Most people I know are much more like rhesus monkeys or macaques.

Re:An Argument for creationists. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40240325)

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you?

Waste mod points here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40240063)

To paraphrase M.O.P

Ghetto AZN, Street AZN, House AZN, We're all AZN's

Pardon me while I get in touch with my inner scholarship snatcher...

Why my face frush when drink EtOH?

What made us 'human' (1)

relikx (1266746) | about 2 years ago | (#40240697)

It's something that could arguably be found best in the congruence of factors giving to the rise of our elevated brain activity in a more complete fashion. In that sense, interesting to wonder when it 'came together' as complex activity (tools, large worship sites, etc.) seems to get further pushed back archaeologically more and more.

An Asian Origin For Human Ancestors? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40240847)

Why not Zoidberg?

Whites evolved from blacks... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40242235)

... and blacks evolved from apes.

As anybody with EYES can see.

But no doubt the 'intelligent but brainwashed' Slashdot idiots will say otherwise, thus denying reality, while claiming to be in favour of 'science'.

Have a look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Homo_erectus_new.JPG [wikipedia.org]

What does that look like most to you? A black man, or a white man?

Blacks are destroying white societies. MOST white people want to live in all white countries.

If YOU want to live as a white minority among non-whites (which is where idiots like you are sending ALL white people to in the very near future), why aren't you moving to Haiti?

Any answers? Thought not.

The Words (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40242363)

Ghengis Khan.

Parallel evolution, again? (1)

argStyopa (232550) | about 2 years ago | (#40242885)

Weren't there theories in the early 20th century that humans had evolved from different primates in different places roughly simultaneously (at that time, used as a justification for a sort of patronizing racism - that of course the nonwhite peoples were 'not as evolved' as whites)?

Trying not to resurrect that theory's rationale, but would the article's line of reasoning perhaps suggest that humans MAY in fact have evolved in at least 2 places?

Racism's bad enough today. What would be the result if we figured out that we're actually the result of two SEPARATE human lines who somehow ended up interbreeding?

Re:Parallel evolution, again? (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 years ago | (#40243313)

I don't think the article is saying that humans emerged in Asia and Africa and then intermingled. It's that some primates emerged in Asia. A group of these primates migrated to Africa where some of their descendants evolved into humans who spread across the globe. So while our ancestors came from Africa, they came from Asia before that. (Not really surprising, given the millions of years time-span, that multiple migrations like this would have occurred.)

I KNEW IT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40243153)

I knew that's where we originated!! I KNEW there had to be a reason for why we all eat rice and drive slow!

Galactic Federation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40243283)

Someday, humans on Earth will know that they are not alone in the universe.

With that new information, humans will not come from ape from Africa or Asian. It will be a Truth that Earth had been many times colonize upon the millions of years that Earth exist.

Science is not Truth, Humans come from the universe.

Isn't that Obvious? ;-P

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...