Archaeologica.org

Personal favorite of your's, Cogs?

The Out of Africa Club strikes back!!!!


(Head lice and Head genes, be damned!!)


http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/science ... 083087.htm

The theory that all modern humans descended out of Africa is almost certainly correct, new research claims.

According to the 'Out of Africa' theory, all modern humans come from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Europe and Asia over thousands of years.

They then replaced other early human settlers, such as Neanderthals, rather than interbreeding with them.

Minimalist wrote:The Out of Africa Club strikes back!!!!


(Head lice and Head genes, be damned!!)


http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/science ... 083087.htm

The theory that all modern humans descended out of Africa is almost certainly correct, new research claims.

According to the 'Out of Africa' theory, all modern humans come from a single group of Homo sapiens who emigrated from Africa 2,000 generations ago and spread throughout Europe and Asia over thousands of years.

They then replaced other early human settlers, such as Neanderthals, rather than interbreeding with them.

I noticed they only talk about Australia and New Guinea. What about Europe, Asia, etc...

And what's this about H. erectus not being in the mix. How in the heck do they know if H.erectus DNA hasn't been analyzed. And, if H erectus is in the mix, it probably occured way prior to "modern" man making his way to Australia ca. 50,000 B.P. How do we get from Ergaster/ Erectus to "Archaic" humans to "modern" humans. Did Erectus disappear and "archaic"/ "modern" man just magically appear?

A land bridge to Australia? Didn't we pretty much dispel this notion in earlier debates? Monk and Rokcet, can you break out your sea level maps again?

Early humans were able to travel to Australia via a land bridge that was submerged by water 8,000 years ago.

Ah yes. These people must really have been stupid since there is evidence of boating for the last 50,000 years, but they chose to walk instead.

Cognito wrote:

Early humans were able to travel to Australia via a land bridge that was submerged by water 8,000 years ago.

Ah yes. These people must really have been stupid since there is evidence of boating for the last 50,000 years, but they chose to walk instead.

You noticed that too, did you Cogs??

And what's this about H. erectus not being in the mix. How in the heck do they know if H.erectus DNA hasn't been analyzed. And, if H erectus is in the mix, it probably occured way prior to "modern" man making his way to Australia ca. 50,000 B.P. How do we get from Ergaster/ Erectus to "Archaic" humans to "modern" humans. Did Erectus disappear and "archaic"/ "modern" man just magically appear?

A land bridge to Australia? Didn't we pretty much dispel this notion in earlier debates? Monk and Rokcet, can you break out your sea level maps again?

Charlie, you are correct. No H. erectus DNA has been isolated yet, so no geneticist on earth can know whether or not any admixture occurred. And no ... there was never a land bridge to Australia during the Pleistocene, but there was deep sea boating to get there.

Charlie, it's time to break out our non-existent hand axes and fillet some "experts" for an old fashioned Texas barbeque!

And yes, we have another ....

Charlie, it's time to break out our non-existent hand axes and fillet some "experts" for an old fashioned Texas barbeque!

Sounds tasty!!

I don't know that there was a land bridge to Australia but a man could easily toss a coconut from one island to the next. I don't think traversing the distance would have been too difficult at that time with hundreds of islands.

Monk, there was no land bridge to Australia. Since humans didn't travel by flying coconut, I assume they took some form of boat or raft.



Here is the referenced article that speaks to the subject of migration routes and Pleistocene sea levels: http://www.starfish.ch/dive/Wallacea.html

This story is really out there. We know that the animals in Australia evolved over millions of years in isolation. If there were a land bridge that disappeared 8kya there would have been migrations of animals to/from Australia.

I posted that article yesterday in the "News" thread and said that I thought some Club member was throwing a hissy fit.

However, this blurp of misinformation is leaking into other reports as well.

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/co ... 2007/507/3

Can anyone explain the total disconnect between the beginning of this article and the end? There seems to be something weird going on.

Monk, there was no land bridge to Australia. Since humans didn't travel by flying coconut, I assume they took some form of boat or raft.

I've heard very orthodox types demand that humans floated to Australia on matts of seaweed, accidently.

Why do these guys insist our forefathers were idiots?

I don't get it??

Can anyone explain the total disconnect between the beginning of this article and the end? There seems to be something weird going on.

Iirc, there are Australian mammals, fossilized, in Cretaceous strata. That's stretching "a few thousand years" a bit, isn't it?

Idiots! Sounds like another BBQ, Cogs!!

Break out the axes, and, Min, you can engrave them with your sharp ass scraper!!

The jaw of a tiny mammal that lived alongside polar dinosaurs was collected southeast of Melbourne, Australia, on the 8 of March, 1997. Clearly neither an egg-laying monotreme (echidnas and platypus) nor a pouched marsupial (such as kangaroos and wombats) the specimen presents a puzzle to scientists. It appears to belong either to the third major group of living mammals, the placentals (which include horses, cats, bats, whales and people) or it is a totally new group of mammals closely related to the placentals.

http://www.sci.monash.edu.au/msc/dinodr ... press.html

At least six different taxa are represented among the 21 specimens of mammals found at the Early Cretaceous Flat Rocks site in southeastern Australia. Analysis of these fossils reveals that, although the yield of mammalian specimens per person-year of effort at this locality is remarkably low, it is reasonable to expect that with further effort this assemblage will ultimately prove to be as diverse as any Early Cretaceous mammal assemblage known. By contrast, the two mammalian specimens collected thus far from the Early Cretaceous Dinosaur Cove locality in southeastern Australia are all that are likely to ever be recovered there.

http://www.bioone.org/perlserv/?request ... &page=0036

I don't know that there was a land bridge to Australia

Monk, there was no land bridge to Australia.

Thanks, because I didnt think there was one.

but a man could easily toss a coconut from one island to the next.

Since humans didn't travel by flying coconut,

Easy to see how I was confused that tossing would eventually lead to the idea of flying.

I don't think traversing the distance would have been too difficult at that time with hundreds of islands.

I assume they took some form of boat or raft.

I assumed coconuts.

Thanks for straightening that out Cogs.

I assumed coconuts.

Thanks for straightening that out Cogs.

Settle down there, you two crouching tigers!!

Screw it..fight, fight, fight!!

Charlie, you are correct. No H. erectus DNA has been isolated yet, so no geneticist on earth can know whether or not any admixture occurred

Hence......they know that it just COULDN'T be similar to HSS or HNS because.............



because..........................



because...................................................


Actually, H Erectus could be identical and these bozos would not know one way or the other...................would they?