Out of Africa Busted

[Beagle]

from http://www.skepdic.com/protsch.html

*note In an article dated August 22, 2004, Tony Paterson in the Telegraph quoted Professor Stringer as saying "What was considered a major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside. We are having to rewrite prehistory." Stringer denies having made the statement: "I remember talking to the reporter concerned, and from what I remember the words in question were what he said to me, with him asking whether I agreed with the statement." Stringer also says the Paterson quote "is a made-up quote, as I never placed great weight on the significance of the Hahnofersand find in the first place. It was never called a Neanderthal as far as I know, but certain people saw "mixed" features in its morphology. Its removal is certainly not rewriting anything I have ever said about the Neanderthals, let alone rewriting prehistory!" (personal correspondence)

my emphasis

Well it looks like someone else is trying to rewrite history. Chris Stringer may not believe that one skull is going to change anything, but he should know only too well that Protsch's work did not just cover one skull.

However, some time has past between the outing of Protsch and the publication of Bednariks challenging theory of 'domestication'. As Bednarik has pointed out there is now little or no evidence of 'Cro-Magnon' or 'archaic moderns' from the Aurignacian. The onus is now on for the advocates of OOA - including and especially Chris Stringer because he has been so influential in this regard - to come forward with evidence to the contrary or withdraw what appears now to be not only an unsubstantiated claim, but one that has adversely affected the course and direction of much work by steadfastly denying the importance of items like the Tan-Tan, Berekhat Ram. It (ie. OOA) is now a widely held fallacy amongst the general public and only serves to reinforce the false idea of 'superiority'. A lot of damage has been done.

Very true Richard. The debacle over Protsch never created a ripple. I don't believe it was ever noted in a scientific journal.

And Bednariks paper too, will be ignored, if possible, and Stringer et al will continue with a false theory as if nothing happened. I hope Hawks will blog on it, as he has a worldwide group of readers, including many scientists.

[Ishtar]

And they argue about invisible energy in the sky!

[Beagle]

Ishtar - dear - this thread is all about a new scientific publication. Once again, I must ask you to take this off topic conversation to another thread.

I really don't understand your urge to talk OT here.

[Ishtar]

Beags - I'm not OT. Throughout this thread, the fallibility of science in the case of OOA has been discussed. You even posted an article about it yourself, from the conservatives. Then John said something about it, and you responded to John and so did I.

If you're going to be controlling about a thread, you should at least obey your own rules - otherwise it's confusing.

[Beagle]

This thread is about Bednariks paper. I have only tried to bring OT conversation to a quick close and direct it to another thread.

If Arch was here he would be crapping all over this thread.
If Marduk were here he would be trying to change the conversation to the Sumerians. I've been through a lot of this.

Let's just start over, ok? I'm trying to keep it focused for awhile, and at least see if Hawks blogs on it, and then maybe I'll email Wolpoff. All thoughts are welcome on this paper.

Surely we can do that.

[Ishtar]

I'm happy to do it so long as firstly, everyone keeps to the same rules - including you - and I am not compared to Marduk or Arch. That's way out of line, Beags, and totally unjust.

[Beagle]

OK - moving on.

http://nteu53.homestead.com/files/mythical_moderns1.pdf

Even the genetic justification of this model is fundamentally flawed, for several
reasons. Different research teams have produced different genetic distances in nuclear
DNA, i.e. the distances created by allele frequencies that differ between populations (e.g.
Vigilant et al. 1991; Barinaga 1992; Ayala 1996; Brookfield 1997). Some geneticists
concede that the model rests on untested assumptions; others even oppose it (e.g. Barinaga
1992; Templeton 1996; Brookfield 1997). The various genetic hypotheses about the origins
of ‘Moderns’ that have appeared over the past few decades place the hypothetical split
between Moderns and other humans at times ranging from 17 to 889 ka BP. They all
depend upon preferred models of human demography, for which no sound data at all are
available. This applies to the contentions concerning mitochondrial DNA (African Eve) as
much as to those citing Y-chromosomes (African Adam: Hammer 1995). The divergence
times projected from the diversity found in nuclear DNA, mtDNA, and DNA on the nonrecombining
part of the Y chromosome differ so much that a time regression of any type is
extremely problematic. Contamination of mtDNA with paternal DNA has been demonstrated
(Gyllensten et al. 1991), and Kidd et al. (1996) have shown that, outside Africa, the
elements of which haplotypes are composed largely remain linked in a limited set.

This is going to be a lot to chew on, and I suspect the genetic argument will win out in the final analysis. Maybe Cogs has some thoughts here.

[Beagle]

Richard, I just went to the Palanth forum to post this paper, and I see that you beat me to it. Thanks Bro'. We'll see what those guys say.

[Beagle]

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/ ... -5508.html

This is the C.V. of Chris Stringer. He is the leading proponent of, and one of the originators of the "Out of Africa Theory". He has much at stake in this discussion. He has authored several books. However, I cannot find a paper that he has written on the subject since 2005, when Protsch was terminated.

[john]

All the more proof that "Science"

Is just another form of Religion.

I'm assuming you mean this John. Well, I think science is just science, like biochemistry or whatnot. But then, in some sciences, like archaeology, it can get locked into a bureaucratic institution. Then things begin to be more about the institution than the science. Human foibles abound, as we see happened with the Piltdowning (again) of paleolithic evolution.

Religion, by definition, is already a bureaucratic institution. It is to this institution that people bring their feelings of spirituality (unfortunately).

So I do not see science and religion as two forms of the same thing.
Late for me. 'Night all.

All -

Any effort to suppress improvements in understanding - i.e.,

"Knowledge" -

In an effort to preserve individual egos, the status quo, and

Religio/Political power

Whether

"Religion" driven, or

"Science" driven are

Tautologically identical.

Unfortunately,

Both Religion and Science suffer

From the same malady.

They give you the choice of

Choosing between

An Ivory Tower, or

an Ivory Cathedral.

I reject both of these

Static, bureaucratic, backsight entities.

The true path is

The Shamanic,

The "Red Thread"

Which is what people actually

Did, and said, and learned,

And projected

Into the future,

Thus ensuring both their survival

And ongoing

Growth of their wisdom.

In this sense, both Religion and Science

Have fallen into the same trap

Of static positional warfare directed at

Control of a revenue base,

Entirely disregarding the

Original, non-static

Entirely alive

Voyage of life,

Not only ours, but

All life.




hoka hey


john

[Ishtar]

Hmmm.. the shamanic red thread is a beautiful turn of phrase, John, perfectly summing up the heart of the matter in that how the ancients treated their dead, and venerated their ancestors, is key to our understanding of them. We in our modern society see death as a separate to life (and also, 'a bad thing') because the shamans, who used to show the way into the afterlife, are no longer with us. So we have a blind spot when it comes to studying ancient man, who saw death as a part of life and his ancestors ever with him. We would say that's a primitive view. But he would feel sorry for us, for having to lead such a fragmented life with no idea where we're going or why.

We want to understand who our ancestors really were - but science, which can only see in a material way, just reduces ancient man down to his biological constituents - which is fine as far as it goes. But at the end of all the research, and say that the common ancestor is finally found, what will it benefit us when we're nowhere nearer to understanding our ancestors - who they really were - than we were before we set out?

[Minimalist]

When Bednarik wrote this...way back on page 1...

One of the most sophisticated symbol systems developed by our species is of course language, and it is widely agreed that maritime navigation and colonization of lands by seagoing vessels presupposes relatively complex communication forms, almost certainly of the
verbal kind. Since Pleistocene seafaring necessarily involved forward planning and coordinated community efforts, it is almost impossible to account for it in the absence of “reflective” language.

I doubt that he was considering such esoteric things as religion although most certainly that soon developed. Let's try and see what we agree on here. The ability to do abstract reasoning...even problem solving...is a big part of what makes humans human. If I'm reading Bendarik correctly he is saying that such reasoning ability must have preceeded the crossings of humans (of any type) into Australia, Micronesia, and Europe.

Now, stay with me. IF that is the case, then the OOA theory which claims that "modern humans" arose in Africa and migrated throughout the world within the last 70,000 years MUST BE wrong as evidence for humans exists prior to that.

All of this other stuff is a tangent to the main point which is, can OOA be sustained?

[Cognito]

"... can OOA be sustained?'

Min, I have no doubt that there was an OOA exodus. However, how and when the emigrants impacted the rest of the world is questionable from the standpoint of genetics. Can OOA be sustained? Not in its current form -- it's just too simplistic.

I love Occam's Razor, but I do not believe his concept was used properly in this case. Since there is absolutely no evidence of genocide, it is reasonable to conclude that competing hominids were bred out of the gene pool.

[Minimalist]

bred out of the gene pool.

Or, perhaps, incorporated within it?

[Manystones]

Richard, I just went to the Palanth forum to post this paper, and I see that you beat me to it. Thanks Bro'. We'll see what those guys say.

Yeah I am watching the number of hits on that and noting the lack of response