Mulitregional vs Out of Africa

Random older topics of discussion

Moderators: Minimalist, MichelleH

Locked
ravenwing5910
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:36 pm
Location: Oregon
Contact:

Mulitregional vs Out of Africa

Post by ravenwing5910 » Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:45 pm

Ok boy's whats your take on the Multiregional Continuity Model vs Out of Africa? 8)

User avatar
marduk
Posts: 2121
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 8:29 pm
Location: newbury, berkshire, uk
Contact:

Post by marduk » Fri Mar 16, 2007 1:50 pm

OOA has much more evidence
but then
they have been collecting it longer
the earliest HSS skull dates from 130,000BP
and was found in africa
a lot of the claims made in China is unreliable and based on nationalism as in they like to claim that HSS evolved in their country because it would mean they currently are the most evolved people on earth
a lot of the Russian stuff is unreliable as well
in both cases this tends to be the stuff you actually get to read about because western media loves to print sensationalism no matter what its source
but the second you check it out
the credibility vanishes

theres another aspect that you should consider on this point that Charlie is the resident expert on
HSS was not the only species out there making good tools
:wink:
Image
I would love to have the faith to believe that the Earth was created in seven days but... I have thoughts "Lewis Black"

User avatar
Cognito
Posts: 1615
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 10:37 am
Location: Southern California

Early skulls

Post by Cognito » Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:14 pm

the earliest HSS skull dates from 130,000BP
and was found in africa
Marduk, I thought those finds were re-dated to about 195,000bp and that the dating held up:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4269299.stm

Charlie and I are working on a hypothesis that there were ancient hominids in the Americas making fairly sophisticated tools at an early date. The settlement patters appear to come from the south and head north ... and further, the entry point appears to be from Africa. Initial evidence is derived from tools being found dated in strata at up to 250,000bp with some sites being older. No reliable, in situ hominid remains have yet to be found, but then again, not many people are looking for somebody or something that wasn't supposed to be there in the first place. Archaic bones have been found, but they have lost their provenance and are worthless as evidence.

Whether the Americas were populated at an early date or not is somewhat of a curiosity since no hominids survived to modern times. So far, the OOA theory is backed up by genetic evidence but we don't know enough about hybridization to be 100% certain there wasn't a Neanderthal in the woodpile. At least that's my excuse when I come in second in a sprint. :shock:
Natural selection favors the paranoid

User avatar
marduk
Posts: 2121
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 8:29 pm
Location: newbury, berkshire, uk
Contact:

Post by marduk » Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:28 pm

Marduk, I thought those finds were re-dated to about 195,000bp and that the dating held up:
hey she asked for my take and I didn't know that
now that I do heres my opinion
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 021105.php
When the bones of two early humans were found in 1967 near Kibish, Ethiopia, they were thought to be 130,000 years old. A few years ago, researchers found 154,000- to 160,000-year-old human bones at Herto, Ethiopia. Now, a new study of the 1967 fossil site indicates the earliest known members of our species, Homo sapiens, roamed Africa about 195,000 years ago.
:lol:
Image
I would love to have the faith to believe that the Earth was created in seven days but... I have thoughts "Lewis Black"

User avatar
Charlie Hatchett
Posts: 2274
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:58 pm
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Post by Charlie Hatchett » Fri Mar 16, 2007 2:43 pm


Mar:

theres another aspect that you should consider on this point that Charlie is the resident expert on HSS was not the only species out there making good tools

Cog:

Charlie and I are working on a hypothesis that there were ancient hominids in the Americas making fairly sophisticated tools at an early date. The settlement patters appear to come from the south and head north ... and further, the entry point appears to be from Africa
Well, remember, we have a Middle Stone Age component out there ( "Archaic Humans") dating to about 340,000 B.P. The Lupemban and Sangoan had nice bifacial spearpoints and wicked wood working tools. These guys were concentrated in the subSaharan river basins, especially the Congo. BTW, if you cruise out of the Congo, into the Atlantic, there's a very nice current directly to the Americas. :wink:

Image[/quote]
Charlie Hatchett

PreClovis Artifacts from Central Texas
www.preclovis.com
http://forum.preclovis.com

User avatar
marduk
Posts: 2121
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2006 8:29 pm
Location: newbury, berkshire, uk
Contact:

Post by marduk » Fri Mar 16, 2007 3:32 pm

Well, remember, we have a Middle Stone Age component out there

better be careful with that terminology Charlie
the middle stone age aka the mesolithic dates from 20,000 - 5000bce
depending on what part of the world you are in
:wink:
Europe 8000 bce - 5000 bce
Levant 20,000 bce to 12,150 bce
etc
the spread of technology from one to the other is the reason for short dates in cultures further away from central eurasia
you're not talking about that are you ?
Image
I would love to have the faith to believe that the Earth was created in seven days but... I have thoughts "Lewis Black"

User avatar
Charlie Hatchett
Posts: 2274
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:58 pm
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Post by Charlie Hatchett » Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:30 pm

marduk wrote:
Well, remember, we have a Middle Stone Age component out there

better be careful with that terminology Charlie
the middle stone age aka the mesolithic dates from 20,000 - 5000bce
depending on what part of the world you are in
:wink:
Europe 8000 bce - 5000 bce
Levant 20,000 bce to 12,150 bce
etc
the spread of technology from one to the other is the reason for short dates in cultures further away from central eurasia
you're not talking about that are you ?
I was talking about the African MSA:



http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... r_Nick.pdf

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.co ... arty96.pdf

http://cayman.globat.com/~bandstexas.com/Brooks.pdf
Charlie Hatchett

PreClovis Artifacts from Central Texas
www.preclovis.com
http://forum.preclovis.com

Beagle
Posts: 4746
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 2:39 am
Location: Tennessee

Post by Beagle » Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:46 pm

Those are great links Charlie. 8)

User avatar
Charlie Hatchett
Posts: 2274
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 10:58 pm
Location: Austin, Texas
Contact:

Post by Charlie Hatchett » Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:56 pm

Beagle wrote:Those are great links Charlie. 8)
Yeah, fairly decent descriptions of the MSA. 8)
Charlie Hatchett

PreClovis Artifacts from Central Texas
www.preclovis.com
http://forum.preclovis.com

Minimalist
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15807
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Post by Minimalist » Sat Mar 17, 2007 12:23 am

I've still got problems with placing too much reliance on genetics. They keep moving their own goal posts. Now, there is nothing wrong (in fact there is everything right) with refining their techniques and ideas but what does that say about earlier findings?
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin

FreeThinker
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Apr 03, 2006 7:35 pm

Out of Africa #1

Post by FreeThinker » Sat Mar 17, 2007 1:50 am

Sorry for being slightly off topic for this thread but I thought I would share some links regarding OOA #1, the initial dispersal of archaic humans into Asia and Europe close to two million years ago. The links are to the Stony Brook Human Evolution Symposium from 2005 convened by Richard Leaky. Some top researchers are presented and a free exchange of ideas occurs. There are three segments, each about an hour and 1/2 long...pretty much a raw unedited video of the proceedings. A bit dry, but good stuff for the true paleo nerd. For the record, I did watch them all. The club at its finest. Any house, here are the links:

Stony Brook Human Evolution Symposium part 1:
http://video.google.com/url?docid=-1576 ... zMhYxGAMCg

Stony Brook Human Evolution Symposium part 2:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... k%22&hl=en

Stony Brook Human Evolution Symposium part 3:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... k%22&hl=en

I have no idea why that first url has to be sooooo damn long, but it works on my computer.

BTW, for the record, I come down on the side of OOA #2 being true. At least for the most part. I am not convinced that some wisps of archaic regional traits remain, like the heavy brow and large noses of some Europeans, similar to the previous Neanderthal population, but absent in most of the rest of the world's human population. parallel evolution? Perhaps...but maybe not. Hmmmmmm.....
Science: the PROOF shall set you free

User avatar
Digit
Posts: 6618
Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:22 pm
Location: Wales, UK

Post by Digit » Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:18 am

Without going into genetic mapping, the geneticists claim that early man was nearly wiped out some 70 to 80Kyrs ago, with perhaps as few as 5000 thousand individuals surviving. The scenario suggested is a downturn in climate, if this is so the survivors would have presumably have been in areas most suited to that survival. The scenario is African survival.
This infers that early man was much more numerous before the climate worsened, therefore in areas less suitable for survival, logic says that man died out and thus modern man is a product of the 5000.
If all this is correct I see no problem with parts of the world, NA for example, being inhabited prior to 70K yrs ago. At that stage of development all that would left for us would probably be stone tools Charley, and if we are very lucky, the occasional bones.

Forum Monk
Posts: 1999
Joined: Wed Dec 27, 2006 5:37 pm
Location: USA

Post by Forum Monk » Sat Mar 17, 2007 6:44 am

Nice video links F/T. Thanks. Very helpful review of OOA 1.

:wink:

ravenwing5910
Posts: 164
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:36 pm
Location: Oregon
Contact:

Post by ravenwing5910 » Sat Mar 17, 2007 1:57 pm

Minimalist wrote:I've still got problems with placing too much reliance on genetics.
I wonder about the use of genetics (at this point in technology anyway) to determine the routes or migration/evolution, simply because of the many instances of contact between peoples throughout the evolutionary period. I am not a geneticist so I don't really understand too much about it, but it seems to me that using modern mtDNA to prove an OOA model isn't convincing because of the vast amount of interaction. (does that make any sense at all, sometimes I confuse myself). 8)

Minimalist
Forum Moderator
Posts: 15807
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 1:09 pm
Location: Arizona

Post by Minimalist » Sat Mar 17, 2007 2:10 pm

I'm not convinced about OOA's ability to explain how mankind ended up with white, black, and yellow races. Especially, if there is any credence to the Toba bottleneck theory.
Something is wrong here. War, disease, death, destruction, hunger, filth, poverty, torture, crime, corruption, and the Ice Capades. Something is definitely wrong. This is not good work. If this is the best God can do, I am not impressed.

-- George Carlin

Locked