Beta
×

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!

"Out of Africa" Theory Called Into Question By Originator

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the oh-great-now-you-tell-me dept.

Earth 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.'"

cancel ×

169 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Gay babies (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41366859)

Slashdot sucks!

I wonder if the Oscars will get stripped. (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41366891)

I don't care what they say. It was a good movie.

The missing link .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41366909)

Where do Texans fit in all this?

Re:The missing link .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41366983)

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.

Re:The missing link .... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41368635)

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.

Duh! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41366935)

Everyone knows climate change didn't begin until the Industrial Revolution.

Re:Duh! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367373)

the human growth to 7 billion is indeed a pretty massive part in the climate change of more recent times, mainly because the earth is trying defend itself against 7 billion people and all the extra animals we consume...

starving the earth of resources will only mean that even climate change doesn't matter anymore as we'll just over-consume and make the earth just another moon in space...
but telling people the truth that they should stop re-producing (OH-NO!!), and all the crazies creep from under the floor boards...
50% of people are IDIOTS and that's a fact, 7 billion is enough proof of that fact.

Re:Duh! (3, Insightful)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 2 years ago | (#41367509)

Pro tip:

Phrases like "the earth is trying defend itself" and "starving the earth of resources" put you in the crazies column.

Re:Duh! (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367933)

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:Duh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41368599)

Protip: Crazies aren't going to pay attention to pro tips. ;)

And anyone who thinks the Earth could possibly become like the moon simply because we consume too much, marks themselves as someone not worth bothering with.

Re:Duh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41369695)

> Phrases like "the earth is trying defend itself" and "starving the earth of resources" put you in the crazies column.

For the record, I do not agree with you, which might not mean much, admittedly.

Also, I use such figures of style and don't think I'm crazy (but again, many crazies think they're normal).

And furthermore, "pro" should be used sparingly -- not because it's cool -- but because some of us (me included) automatically read/hear "lame" when "pro" is mentioned. It looks like another incompetent someone hired and put to do some awful job like PR. Sorry, all the pros and PR people in the room...

Ah, one last thing: 5, Insightful? I don't think so. But that's democracy and its typical consequence. Like e.g. Bush.

Re:Duh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367605)

Please, make yourself part of the solution.

(In other news, the population growth has been slowing for decades and we will top out just below 10 billion. We've also been able to increase food production as well as general health faster than population growth over the same amount of time. But hey, why let facts stand in the way of your chosen extremism?)

Re:Duh! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41368895)

Wasn't the Earth hotter in dinosaur time when there was 24% Oxygen in the atmosphere?

Re:Duh! (3, Insightful)

Internetuser1248 (1787630) | about 2 years ago | (#41368525)

Everyone knows climate change has been going on since the big bang. Doesn't mean that it isn't influenced by humans and it certainly doesn't dispute the fact that it is of concern to modern society. If anything the fact that we have been victims of climate change for millenia reinforces the idea that we should do all we can to research its causes and possible ways to mitigate or adapt to it.

Sounds like a true scientist (5, Insightful)

excelsior_gr (969383) | about 2 years ago | (#41366939)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367155)

They got contacted by Isak Dinesen's estate manager who told them to stop using the title of her book for a theory name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out_of_Africa [wikipedia.org]

As you see, even Wikipedia gave her the main link.

Re:Sounds like a true scientist (5, Insightful)

pr0t0 (216378) | about 2 years ago | (#41367215)

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:Sounds like a true scientist (1, Offtopic)

Bigby (659157) | about 2 years ago | (#41367503)

Although completely unrelated, but a similar circle-back: Roe in Roe v Wade.

Re:Sounds like a true scientist (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41368165)

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 atheist) and made many lifestyle choices, including a claim to no longer be homosexual.

I don't want to start an argument on religion or faith or anything, but that kind of extreme conversion in any direction on any topic does not happen rationally without extraordinary evidence (I fail to see any new arguments being introduced since the 70s, but I wasn't able to find any sort of list) and her own comments paint a vivid picture of emotional weakness (as would be expected, given the circumstances).

Re:Sounds like a true scientist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41368381)

Me again. Please don't see that post as a personal attack, Bigby. I actually just had an argument about this very thing with someone a few days ago and I guess I'm still a bit worked up. Sorry if my tone was confrontational.

Heh, captcha was "manors". I have to remember to mind mine, sometimes. :)

Re:Sounds like a true scientist (1)

foma84 (2079302) | about 2 years ago | (#41368397)

The catch is: if it's so well worth your praise, it's not so common (among scientists).

Scientists (not this case) can prove some of the most oscuratist, closed-minded dicks. Sigh.

Re:Sounds like a true scientist (2)

scamper_22 (1073470) | about 2 years ago | (#41367637)

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:Sounds like a true scientist (1)

excelsior_gr (969383) | about 2 years ago | (#41367841)

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:Sounds like a true scientist (2)

Internetuser1248 (1787630) | about 2 years ago | (#41368615)

It isn't science fiction. We know very little about the origin of life and until we have better evidence about the actual mechanism the single vs. multiple origin debate is largely subjective. I am not an expert.

Simple reason: (-1, Troll)

trseekz (2732621) | about 2 years ago | (#41368083)

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!

Its all about denying that we are different species. It is about denying that there is any significant evolution that has happened to us after we went our separate ways. It is about denying that force integrating us back together would lose any such differences. It is about denying the fact that we should not race mix. It is about justifying the genocide of the European species.

Basically, they want to selectively breed humanity, which they consider peons, into the dumbest and least capable species possible. They want to do this so that the we are not genetically capable of comprehending or resisting our enslavement they have us bound under. The easiest and fastest way to do this is to throw away humans and start with africans, who are already essentially as dumb and incapable of organizing as they want in their slave species.

This purposeful down breeding of humanity is protected from exposure when the lie of out of africa is taught, thus they fight diligently to keep up the illusion of us all being the same.

Re:Simple reason: (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41368221)

I thought mixing of genes produces even more diversity. The same diversity you are arguing for but arguing against the process that produces this diversity. What makes you think that evolution of species (or growing diversity) will stop if we mix these genes. Its a scientific fact for preservation of animal species that the more diversified genes its representative animals have, more chances of survival the specie has. Even a simple experiment from Mendal (if you know who he was) proved that mixing of same two genes twice doesn't produce same result both the times. In simple terms it increases diversity (or differences in your language).

Re:Simple reason: (-1, Flamebait)

trseekz (2732621) | about 2 years ago | (#41368349)

Not exactly. Continual mixing of all the different species together will create a species that is the average of them all. Since human DNA only has so many base pairs, the amount of information it can contain is limited. Thus information will be lost by mixing everyone together. Their strategy is not to simply do this however, it is also to mix in uneven proportions. They subsidize the birthrate of the desirable (to them) genetics, by taxing us and sending the money to africans living in our country and in africa. This higher cost of limiting marginalizes our genetics, as it is more expensive to live and thus have large families here. They also use brainwashing (education) to guilt us into having smaller families, have us delay marriage, Etc. Many ways they slew the ratio of this mixing. The end result will be a world population very close in genetics to the african species.

Re:Simple reason: (1, Informative)

Internetuser1248 (1787630) | about 2 years ago | (#41368919)

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 not the only one) and seems to have missed the fact that the author, and all other respected paleontologists, clearly believe that we are in fact all one species. It is referred to in the article as 'modern human'. The entire post hinges on the misguided idea that someone in the world who has studied the subject and knows what he is talking about believes that 'foreigners' are a different species from 'us'. This is not the case. 'Us' of course in this case meaning caucasian Europeans.
2. The post is in essence a diatribe against a world wide government conspiracy trying to achieve in his words 'the genocide of the European species'. When I talk about conspiracies that involve multiple world governments I generally get modded down on the grounds that world governments are't organised enough and hate each other too much to perpetrate real conspiracies together. While i disagree with that in general with regard to small groups of nations I think this particular theory has far less evidence and is far more unlikely than any I have suggested.
3. The main justification of the points of view put forward is that the phrase 'Out of Africa' is somehow a lie. As the leading expert in the article states modern humans did in fact originate in Africa, it is not a lie, it is not even disputed by any serious paleontologists (to my knowledge). The new modifications to the theory proposed here suggest no reason to change the name of the theory. What the article says is that our species interbred with other types of prehistoric humans, far in the past, and that traces of their DNA exist in ours to prove it. The slashdot headline might be partly to blame for the confusion here.
4. At the time of posting he has +1, I know the quality of slashdot has declined as the number of users has increased but as someone with mod points you have a small amount of control over this. Take a little pride in the site and make sure someone who posts personal opinions as uninformed and lazily researched as this are far from those gentle impressionable readers who come here for reliable information. If this poster is not trolling he as at least far enough from reality that a troll moderation is called for, especially given that there is no downmod for lies or misinformation.

Re:Sounds like a true scientist (0)

ilguido (1704434) | about 2 years ago | (#41368113)

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.

Because it's the more politically correct theory about the human evolution. Politics matter.

Re:Sounds like a true scientist (1)

trseekz (2732621) | about 2 years ago | (#41368205)

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:Sounds like a true scientist (1)

scamper_22 (1073470) | about 2 years ago | (#41368359)

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:Sounds like a true scientist (1)

todrules (882424) | about 2 years ago | (#41368553)

They're racists and paranoid. They think there's some big conspiracy to repress the "truth", or at least what they think of as the truth. That's the only way they can justify in their beliefs - some big conspiracy theory. But, I have to say that if a belief system falls apart on the basis of a conspiracy or not, then maybe the belief system should be looked at.

Re:Sounds like a true scientist (0)

ilguido (1704434) | about 2 years ago | (#41369225)

I'm not racist, nor paranoid, nor I think that there is some kind of big secret conspiracy. It's thanks to profound, intelligent, scientific rebuttals like yours that there are racists in this world.

Re:Sounds like a true scientist (3, Insightful)

Internetuser1248 (1787630) | about 2 years ago | (#41369169)

The politics thing is basically believers in the 'true pure strain' of humans, what the nazis called aryans, are a different species from people of other cultures and nations. Your question was a scienctific one, but it was read through glasses stained with ideology.
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:Sounds like a true scientist (1)

ilguido (1704434) | about 2 years ago | (#41369549)

Stop with this non-sense, first of all single genesis is not more popular than multiple genesis, it all depends on the scientific field: e.g. in linguistic the majority favor the multiple genesis of the human language (though its evidence is scarce). Second, we were talking about origins, not genesis, those are different things: the first refers to the polygenist theory, the second to the multiregional theory (which is what challenges the out of africa theory today). Third, isn't this the best demonstration of what I was trying to say?

"He seems to challenge our established thought, God forbid, to the stake, to the stake that rabid unbeliever!"
That's not the best way to spread ideas and scientific reasoning, though it works (and that's what I was saying).

Re:Sounds like a true scientist (0)

ilguido (1704434) | about 2 years ago | (#41369713)

Because that kind of theory is somewhat linked to racism, it's an offspring of the polygenist theory which was used by 19th century racists as a basis for their ideas. And as every reader of this thread now knows, just being a suspected racist is a capital crime. So better be not, that is the definition of political* correctness.

*politics is the art of keeping good social relations.

Re:Sounds like a true scientist (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 2 years ago | (#41368835)

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 (-1, Flamebait)

ilguido (1704434) | about 2 years ago | (#41369171)

That's obvious, however you might concur that:

*the vast majority of biologists believes in the Out of Africa theory, so trying to disprove that might reduce the budgets of those who review your articles, award you with a doctorate and so on...
*that kind of theory is more likely to spur those who think there are different human races or species, as you can deduce from this very thread.

Re:Sounds like a true scientist (2)

Paracelcus (151056) | about 2 years ago | (#41368251)

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:Sounds like a true scientist (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | about 2 years ago | (#41368809)

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 human population has in the different regions of the planet.

Power Law in Effect (4, Insightful)

Baby Duck (176251) | about 2 years ago | (#41366953)

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:Power Law in Effect (2)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 2 years ago | (#41367527)

Pretty sure the actual problem is that there is no 'pinpoint' of human origins.

Re:Power Law in Effect (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 2 years ago | (#41368849)

We have plenty of remains dug out that long predate any evidence of stone tools.

Re:Power Law in Effect (3, Informative)

nowsharing (2732637) | about 2 years ago | (#41369183)

Your points are either incorrect or untestable:

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 may be right now and then, but you can't simply make a broad blanket statement like this. There are hundreds of markers for a human presence that can be examined beyond fossilized remains.

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.

Humans didn't need stone tools in any areas that had ample bamboo present. It's easier to make and acquire, and just as sharp. However, there is intense work across SE Asia and Indonesia where human remains were found with and without stone tools, probably because bamboo was being used. So again, you're wrong on this point. This is where science takes over. It looks at broad, perhaps logically seeming statements and questions them. Answers come by interpreting evidence. Paleoanthropologists are doing an excellent job, and critiquing them with your own common sense will not lead to you to good answers.

Misleading headline (2, Insightful)

i kan reed (749298) | about 2 years ago | (#41366959)

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:Misleading headline (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367059)

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 typewriters," but with way less quality control.

Re:Misleading headline (2)

ddd0004 (1984672) | about 2 years ago | (#41367529)

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:Misleading headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367679)

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 ;)

Re:Misleading headline (1)

drkim (1559875) | about 2 years ago | (#41368125)

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:Misleading headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41368585)

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"

You are assuming a religion that practices its doctrine. Do you have any historical examples?

Re:Misleading headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367351)

This is essentially a non-story that only acts as fuel for dumb creationists who don't read more than a headline.

This is essentially a non-comment that only acts as fuel for dumb trolls who don't read more than a post topic.

Re:Misleading headline (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 2 years ago | (#41367375)

Yeah, the summary is very misleading. The Great Reexamination started in the moment when we started sequencing DNA and finding the most recent hominids. Does anyone actually doubt the very fact that higher primates evolved in Africa? If not, then the headline is an attempt at being sensational.

Re:Misleading headline (1)

Third Position (1725934) | about 2 years ago | (#41367783)

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:Misleading headline (0)

AmberBlackCat (829689) | about 2 years ago | (#41367407)

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.

Re:Misleading headline (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367753)

That's exactly how I read his comment as well.

Please, I thought we Slashdotters could be of higher intelligence than this, but the childish religion smearing continues...

Re:Misleading headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41368603)

Nothing eh? Except warp education curricula to suit their unsupported beliefs.

But keep practicing the Christian victim theme, it's a sign of your arrogance that you want to them to be martyrs.

Re:Misleading headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41368857)

It's always fun and satisfying to hear the bigots whine. Let's bash some more.

Re:Misleading headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41369013)

I bash the flat-earthers when I get half a chance, too. Some people deserve a little healthy ridicule.

Re:Misleading headline (-1, Troll)

trseekz (2732621) | about 2 years ago | (#41368151)

No, the lie of out of africa is this:
We were 100% human when we left africa, any differences that evolved separately since we left are superficial, like skin color.

The truth is that we left africa long before we were 'human'. Chinese evolved the way they are because they evolved from a pre-human creature which left africa and bred with the Denisovans which had already been evolving in Asia for a long time. .Europeans are the way they are because a pre-human creature left africa and spent time evolving in europe while also breeding with Neanderthals who had already been in europe evolving for a long time. Africans are the pre humans who stayed in africa essentially.

That truth is violently opposed. Why?

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:

Its all about denying that we are different species. It is about denying that there is any significant evolution that has happened to us after we went our separate ways. It is about denying that force integrating us back together would lose any such differences. It is about denying the fact that we should not race mix. It is about justifying the genocide of the European species.

Basically, they want to selectively breed humanity, which they consider peons, into the dumbest and least capable species possible. They want to do this so that the we are not genetically capable of comprehending or resisting our enslavement they have us bound under. The easiest and fastest way to do this is to throw away humans and start with africans, who are already essentially as dumb and incapable of organizing as they want in their slave species.

This purposeful down breeding of humanity is protected from exposure when the lie of out of africa is taught, thus they fight diligently to keep up the illusion of us all being the same.

Re:Misleading headline (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | about 2 years ago | (#41368869)

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:Misleading headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41368339)

Yeah? Well if you want to go down that road, maybe we originated as in the oceans, and the details of how our ancestors ended up in Africa just need refinement.

Recent evidence suggests that some branches of modern humanity spent significant time and had significant developments outside of Africa, including lateral gene transfer from Neanderthals.

So in other words... (2)

Daetrin (576516) | about 2 years ago | (#41366965)

Like every other part of science and history, no matter how simple the subject appears at first the more you dig into it the more complex it gets?

Re:So in other words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367149)

Like every other part of science and history, no matter how simple the subject appears at first the more you dig into it the more complex it gets?

Indeed. See climate change. Still, there is a scientific consensus on what theories the observable data supports. The most ironic thing is people ridiculing creationists over evolution, but questioning climate change despite similar overwhelming scientific consensus, and, using many of the same arguments creationists use (it is so complex we can't really tell, the theories and data keeps changing, etc.)

Re:So in other words... (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 2 years ago | (#41367473)

Exactly... this seems to be a matter of degree. What percent of DNA do currently-living humans have in common? What percent of that is common with our "out of Africa" ancestors and was not anywhere else yet at that time? Certainly a little has changed since then, but how much?

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:So in other words... (-1, Troll)

trseekz (2732621) | about 2 years ago | (#41368231)

No, the lie of out of africa is this:
We were 100% human when we left africa, any differences that evolved separately since we left are superficial, like skin color.

The truth is that we left africa long before we were 'human'. Chinese evolved the way they are because they evolved from a pre-human creature which left africa and bred with the Denisovans which had already been evolving in Asia for a long time. .Europeans are the way they are because a pre-human creature left africa and spent time evolving in europe while also breeding with Neanderthals who had already been in europe evolving for a long time. Africans are the pre humans who stayed in africa essentially.

Re:So in other words... (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 2 years ago | (#41368887)

No, the lie of out of africa is this: We were 100% human when we left africa, any differences that evolved separately since we left are superficial, like skin color.

The truth is that we left africa long before we were 'human'. Chinese evolved the way they are because they evolved from a pre-human creature which left africa and bred with the Denisovans which had already been evolving in Asia for a long time.

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 just watched a 4 season series (3, Funny)

future assassin (639396) | about 2 years ago | (#41366973)

on humans and it showed them coming in on space ships.

Re:I just watched a 4 season series (3, Funny)

Nimey (114278) | about 2 years ago | (#41367125)

Were they shaped like DC-8s?

Re:I just watched a 4 season series (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367147)

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:I just watched a 4 season series (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367307)

on humans and it showed them coming in on space ships.

Those were just the Kolobians. They are more closely related to Jesus, as Jesus is from Kobol. I mean Kolob. If you payed closer attention to the finale, you'd have noticed that the Earth had humans on it pre-Kolobian arrival.

Effin' Mormons and their 4 season propaganda series!

you mean kabob (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41369247)

thats why he got put on a stake.....

Re:I just watched a 4 season series (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367309)

Was it on the History Channel?

Re:I just watched a 4 season series (1)

future assassin (639396) | about 2 years ago | (#41368953)

No it was on Pirate Bay

Re:I just watched a 4 season series (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41369309)

what show was it? thanks

Re:I just watched a 4 season series (1)

Master Moose (1243274) | about 2 years ago | (#41368781)

Oh that must have been on the History channel

Old story (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367021)

The news story is dated 11/12/11. It's nearly a year old.

Respect! (5, Insightful)

folderol (1965326) | about 2 years ago | (#41367293)

For someone to publicly challenge their own theories takes considerable stature.

Re:Respect! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41368367)

Not to mention, when those theories have significant political consequences. The "out of Africa" theory was very convenient for people who deny racial differences.

Re:Respect! (1)

517714 (762276) | about 2 years ago | (#41368389)

Or they are using it as a means of getting back in the spotlight. I don't know which in this case, but usually it is as I have suggested.

We all know why these stories are posted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367671)

Because they bring out the GNAA and similar trolls. There is nothing nerd-worthy about this. Slashdot is complete shit now, and should be removed from the internet.

I hate Biology (1, Informative)

chubs (2470996) | about 2 years ago | (#41367875)

This is one of the reasons I hated Biology as a subject. The best definition I ever got for 'species' was a set of organisms that could interbreed and produce fertile offspring. This guy reminds us "remember, that's not always the case". So, if that's not the definition of species, what is? Poke and prod any Zoology professor long enough and he'll finally say "that's just the way it is, so just memorize it". There's no logical process defined for assigning organisms a place in our taxonomy. The only answer is "They guy credited with finding these arbitrarily decided that it belonged in this phylum, genus, etc" (I forgot the orders because, like I said, it's all arbitrary anyway). There is no sure-fire way to decide whether 2 organisms belong to the same species (much less any more generic taxon) because the reproduce with fertile offspring test is not necessarily the answer. It then comes down to "Well, they look different and they act different enough that I now officially say so". Bah. Is anything that arbitrary truly a science?

Re:I hate Biology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41367981)

Can someone please elaborate further on this?

Re:I hate Biology (2)

Langalf (557561) | about 2 years ago | (#41368561)

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:I hate Biology (1)

NoMaster (142776) | about 2 years ago | (#41368733)

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 organisms are morphologically & functionally equivalent down to the smallest detail that we care about, you may as well bundle them together & treat them the same (i.e. as the same species).
5) Why is the concept of "species" seemingly so flexible? Because we keep discovering more & moving the goalposts established in Point 4

Re:I hate Biology (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | about 2 years ago | (#41368909)

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:I hate Biology (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 2 years ago | (#41368967)

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 individual elements any less valid.

I never understood the traditional species concept (3, Insightful)

rrohbeck (944847) | about 2 years ago | (#41367899)

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?

Simple! (-1, Troll)

trseekz (2732621) | about 2 years ago | (#41368049)

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:

Its all about denying that we are different species. It is about denying that there is any significant evolution that has happened to us after we went our separate ways. It is about denying that force integrating us back together would lose any such differences. It is about denying the fact that we should not race mix. It is about justifying the genocide of the European species.

Basically, they want to selectively breed humanity, which they consider peons, into the dumbest and least capable species possible. They want to do this so that the we are not genetically capable of comprehending or resisting our enslavement they have us bound under. The easiest and fastest way to do this is to throw away humans and start with africans, who are already essentially as dumb and incapable of organizing as they want in their slave species.

This purposeful down breeding of humanity is protected from exposure when the lie of out of africa is taught, thus they fight diligently to keep up the illusion of us all being the same.

Re:Simple! (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | about 2 years ago | (#41368477)

Huh?
I think your tinfoil hat is too tight, restricting blood flow to your brain.

Re:Simple! (1)

trseekz (2732621) | about 2 years ago | (#41368581)

Sure, go on making such jokes all the way to the doom of the permanent enslavement of your genome.

Nice counter argument by the way.

Re:Simple! (1)

rrohbeck (944847) | about 2 years ago | (#41368649)

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:Simple! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41368691)

Ah, I see: no reason for you to present any valid counter arguments because of an assumption of yours regarding the first sentence?

It has been presented as fact to the general public. It is also used as fact in justifying policies and rejecting any question of such policies. It has ever been but a theory. That is what the first sentence says. No mangling involved.

Re:Simple! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41369089)

Why would anyone bother crafting a fully reasoned counter argument if you fail to provide any real argument to begin with? All I see is you masturbating over thinly-veiled bigotry and conspiracy theories.

What "growing evidence"?
What other theories? (Multiregional origin has been pretty solidly debunked by genetics as far as I can tell...)
What "violent" opposition?

And for everything after the first line, I think you need to start by answering the simple question of "Who are 'they'?" Scientists? Liberals? Jews? Reptilians? From there, we're going to need a LOT more information and justification for your wild claims. From the tone and the bit about "justifying the genocide of the European species", you're frankly just coming off as a typical white supremacist with a persecution complex.

We appreciate you creating a new account just to talk to us, but we'd rather you go back to stormfront or whatever the fuck.

Re:Simple! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41369207)

In case that wasn't clear enough:

For someone who complains about evidence, you have provided exactly NONE of it.

Re:Simple! (1)

modmans2ndcoming (929661) | about 2 years ago | (#41368935)

Hey... dumb ass creationist.... you better hold onto something....I think the THEORY of gravity might be wrong.

Re:Simple! (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 2 years ago | (#41369039)

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, each bringing its own unique set of genes to our common pool.

Scientifically, the entire humanity today is a single species, regardless of whether there were multiple waves, or just one. Also, all evidence we have to date shows that all modern humans owe most their genome to hominids originating from in Africa.

troll? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41369121)

are you a troll?

Re:I never understood the traditional species conc (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 2 years ago | (#41368987)

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:I never understood the traditional species conc (2)

MaXintosh (159753) | about 2 years ago | (#41369455)

As a biologist, I'd say you've hit the nail on the head. There's probably no such thing as a species as a discrete entity, and the reason we have about 57 different species concepts is that they're all differing models for categorically explaining a continuous phenomenon that otherwise defies enumeration. But like other models, they're fantastically useful in some respects, and we keep them around for those purposes. When species concepts start to break down, we start talking about things like gene trees, or population dynamics, depending on the level of precision required. Even those things are models, but models that are useful for the level of question we're asking.

At its root, the only things that really 'exist' are probably genes, which struggle for existence in communities of other genes, trying to replicate themselves as much as possible because the ones who don't aren't around anymore. But working purely with genes, and nothing else, needlessly complicates a great many things.

Why I agree out of africa is wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41369049)

The dates don't match my own research into plate tectonics and ocean levels at around 130,000 years ago the only time a few peruvian ruins that have docks for boats that are now 12 miles inland and 2 miles up the mountain side could have had water .....
IF the out of africa theory is correct then its impossible that these ruins exist and someone for a reason has been lying.
LYING i tell ya....there is more evidence a whole city form 12000 - 11000 years back in peru that had no forts , no army , no weapons and traded as far away as brazil , japan etc. FROM the objects found that was derived that civilization was founded on trade not war.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>