The dendrogram, which Debunker claims proves these prehistoric Europeans were just like modern Europeans, actually shows modern Europeans to be closer to Oceanians and East Asians than to prehistoric Europeans like the Hofmeyr skull. Odd way to shoot yourself in the foot, isn't it?
^^^^^^More rehashed nonsense from Debunked. Desperately trying to defend the Greeks 'whiteness' again.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Debunked will now magically try to present the argument that East Asians and Oceanians are somehow "Caucasoids" or some other dumb argument. It was perfect how the Bass set himup to make a fool of himself. The funny thing is that from the data based on distances, Oceanians are closer to Africans than to West Eurasians
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Afrocentrists are also blind in addition to being stupid and dishonest.
Of course, Oceania is closest to East Asia, not Africa.
And Hofmeyr is still closer to recent Europeans than it is to any Africans.
Excluding Neanderthals, the only "groupings" that can be made from that data are Africans vs. non-Africans, and Hofmeyr is smack in the middle of the non-Africans, confirming all of the evidence regarding pre-OOA population structure.
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: Afrocentrists are also blind in addition to being stupid and dishonest.
^ Certainly you are Erroneous Euro under new alias 'Debunked', as you are predictably resorting to insults in the face of defeat just as you did last round.
Your big blue circle is quite silly and also debunks you.
Take the same circle and turn it 45 degrees counter clockwise.
Now it includes everything *but* Europeans and Neanderthal.
Question - what population on the bottom chart are modern Europeans [WEU on the upper right] actually close to?
ANSWER: NONE. They are distant from 'everything else' on that chart.
You can't debate.
You can't read.
You can't even draw.
You're only good for laughs. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Debunked attempts to divide the chart, via photoshop into Africans and non Africans.
This is also a joke, no matter how he marks up the chart with is crayons...
In the chart shown...
1) Paleolithic North Africans are closer to the the modern African cluster than the to modern European.
2) Non Africans for him includes Blacks of Oceana, [which is New Guinea and Australia] and East Asians..... who are neither European nor white nor 'caucasians', therefore so how does grouping them together help him prove the antiquity of caucasian?
We still want to know how grouping Europeans and New Guinea together proves the original African population was 'caucasian'?
Debunked.....keep running away. It's all you can do....
quote:Originally posted by rasol:
quote:and "non-African" camp [aka the African lineages "common outside of the continent"].
Hence the relevance of the unanswered question:
quote:As you would "model" homo-sapiens, are Melanesian and European a part of the same population structure?
Yes or no?
If yes, then what does "population structure" tell us about "caucasian".
If no, then what *is* the basis of a genetic structure that contrasts "Africans" and Non Africans...which you propose?
To make it easier....here is picture and genetic data which relates my question.
Melanesians {Oceania}....
Europeans, show as intermediates
between Oceania and Africans.....
Oceanians and Africans would represent the "opposite ends" of the proposed "structure".
quote:Originally posted by rasol: [QUOTE]We still want to know how grouping Europeans and New Guinea together proves the original African population was 'caucasian'
Evergreen Writes:
How ironic given the fact that this land was named NEW Guinea because the Spanish thought the inhabitants looked like the people of OLD Guinea.
Posts: 2007 | From: Washington State | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: Afrocentrists are also blind in addition to being stupid and dishonest.
Spewing insults out of frustration? LMAO! Personal attacks are not evidence.
quote:Of course, Oceania is closest to East Asia, not Africa.
Oceanians are closer to Africans than to Europeans as well as closer to Hofmeyr than Europeans.
quote:And Hofmeyr is still closer to recent Europeans than it is to any Africans.
Hofmeyr nor EUP are Caucasoids, Eurocentric wet dream is now a nightmare.
[quote]Excluding Neanderthals, the only "groupings" that can be made from that data are Africans vs. non-Africans, and Hofmeyr is smack in the middle of the non-Africans,[7quote]
Actually recent Europeans are the intermediates, confirming all genetic evidence that Europeans are a mix of Asians and Africans, cased closed.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I notice that Debunker did a shitty job of addressing how, if Hofmyer and other European Paleolithic skulls were so similar to modern Europeans, modern Europeans show greater similarity to Oceanians and East Asians than to those prehistoric skulls.
Hell, for that matter, if you actually pay attention to the dendrogram, it shows modern Europeans as being closer to Africans than prehistoric Europeans. Prehistoric Europeans seem to be distinct from all currently existing human populations:
Posts: 7069 | From: Fallbrook, CA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ LOL What the heck do you expect from Stupid-Euro. He like Marc Washington are only good at putting together photoshop stuff but NEVER at properly displaying accurate data.
As Rasol says, keep the laughs coming! Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right you are Djehuti. The Hofmeyr skull is a 35 thousand year old skull from Southern Africa.
The actual significance of the skull - which requires ignoring Debunkeds utterly idiotic prattle to understand - is as follows.
- The skull affirms the recent African origin of all humans.
- The reason for this is that the skull is similar to other skulls found in Eurasia at the time when Eurasia was 1st inhabited.
- That's why there are some similarities between Hofmyer and other Upper Paleolithic skulls.
- A dwindling minority of anthropologists have disputed the African origin of all humans based on the idea that Europeans, or say, Chinese actually resemble local Eurasian hominids such as Neanderthal and Nanjing man.
- And example of this belief was expressed some time ago by CL Brace, with regards to Herto skull - the oldest agreed upon homo sapiens from 130 thousand years ago in Ethiopia.....
The Beginning of Modern Humans" (editorial, June 15) states that a newly discovered Ethiopian skull more than 150,000 years old is "recognizably modern to paleoanthropologists but not to most of the rest of us." It does not look recognizably modern to _this_ paleoanthropologist, and it is a much less probable candidate for being the ancestor of the modern European human than the European Neanderthal is.
I have superimposed the outlines of the crania being compared. Statistical analysis of a battery of measurements shows that the European Neanderthal is more closely related to modern Europeans than to anyone else in the world. This can only be because there is an actual genetic relationship.
That splendid Ethiopian specimen is a good candidate for being an ancestor of Ethiopians, but not Europeans.
- C. Loring Brace
Herto Man:
Here is and intelligent discussion on video from Chris Stringer on Herto Man.
I'd advise viewing it, as it frames the debate nicely:
^ The Hofmyer skull simply adds more evidence to Stringer's point, and further moots Brace...**assuming Brace still holds the Neanderthal hybrid hypothesis**...which I doubt, as evidence piles up against it.
- Lastly it should be understood, that there have already been 30 thousand plus year old skeletans from Africa - that resemble different specific *modern* African ethnic groups [like Herto/Brace's so called ancestor of Ethiopians].... but are at the same time different enough from paleolithic Eurasians that cause some to claim a distinct origin.
- The oldest human found in Egypt, is called Nazlet Khater and is as old as Hofmyer:
The morphometric affinities of the 33,000 year old skeleton from Nazlet Khater, Upper Egypt are examined using multivariate statistical procedures.
In the first part, principal components analysis is performed on a dataset of mandible dimensions of 220 fossils, sub-fossils and modem specimens, ranging in time from the Late Pleistocene to recent and restricted in space to the African continent and Southern Levant.
In the second part, mean measurements for various prehistoric and modem African and Levantine populations are incorporated in the statistical analysis. Subsequently, differences between male and female means are examined for some of the modern and prehistoric populations.
The results indicate a strong association between some of the sub-Saharan Middle Stone Age (MSA) specimens, and the Nazlet Khater mandible.
Furthermore, the results suggest that variability between African populations during the Neolithic and Protohistoric periods was more pronounced than the range of variability observed among recent African and Levantine populations. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1557864
- This shows how Africa is the home of rhe variability in skull shape for all humans.
- It is ironic, that the most recognizably 'ethnically african' looking skull is found in Egypt, at the same time as the Hofymer skull.
- Frankly, there are skulls from holocene East Africa which might be more similar [superfically] to *modern* Europeans than Hofmyer.
- Hofmyer has low nasal height and and extremely broad nose, there's nothing about this skull which lends it a specifically European appearance at all.
- The skull draws it's affinity to paleolithic skulls in Eurasia largely by it's so called 'primative' features ....shared by many 30 thousand year old skulls, but not found in moderns.
- All skull affinity studies need to be taken with a grain of salt.
- This one is based on the notorious Howells fordisc system which in my opinion is scandalous in the way it reduces African to Bantu and Khoisan only samples, and so tries to isolate the skull affinities of Africans.
- Even so, there is nothing in the study that is profoundly objectionable.
- Noone thinks Hofmyer skull is a member of a imaginary K-zoid race. Or that it looks like a European. In some ways, it is even more different from typical modern Europeans than Herto man, [which has a relatively narrow nose opening] and which is 100 thousand years older.
- It is a measure of the sheer desparation of Debunked, that his answer to the evidence of the reality of Black African admixture in southern Europe [from E3b to Benin west african originating sickle cell haplotype], is to claim that the original Africans, are not African.
He provides the desparate comedy relief, while we use him to educate on the otherwise dry topic of anthropology. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You mean the Hofmeyr skull was south African all this time? I had thought it was European, what with all of Debunker's prattling about it being similar to Europeans. I feel embarassed about my error.
posted
^ You shouldn't be embarrassed, but Debunked should.
HOfmeyr is a town in Eastern Cape province in South Africa.
The finding hurts Eurocentrism, because it shows again that human skull variability originates in Africa, and cannot be attributed to migrations from Asia and Europe.
This is what Chris Stringer has been saying all along.
This is what he meant with his observation that some Cro Magnon look more like modern Africans and Australians than current Europeans.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Why humans left their African homeland 80,000 years ago to colonize the world
* By Guy Gugliotta * Smithsonian magazine, July 2008
Seventy-seven thousand years ago, a craftsman sat in a cave in a limestone cliff overlooking the rocky coast of what is now the Indian Ocean. It was a beautiful spot, a workshop with a glorious natural picture window, cooled by a sea breeze in summer, warmed by a small fire in winter. The sandy cliff top above was covered with a white- flowering shrub that one distant day would be known as blombos and give this place the name Blombos Cave.
The man picked up a piece of reddish brown stone about three inches long that he—or she, no one knows—had polished. With a stone point, he etched a geometric design in the flat surface—simple crosshatchings framed by two parallel lines with a third line down the middle.
Today the stone offers no clue to its original purpose. It could have been a religious object, an ornament or just an ancient doodle. But to see it is to immediately recognize it as something only a person could have made. Carving the stone was a very human thing to do.
The scratchings on this piece of red ocher mudstone are the oldest known example of an intricate design made by a human being. The ability to create and communicate using such symbols, says Christopher Henshilwood, leader of the team that discovered the stone, is "an unambiguous marker" of modern humans, one of the characteristics that separate us from any other species, living or extinct.
Henshilwood, an archaeologist at Norway's University of Bergen and the University of the Witwatersrand, in South Africa, found the carving on land owned by his grandfather, near the southern tip of the African continent. Over the years, he had identified and excavated nine sites on the property, none more than 6,500 years old, and was not at first interested in this cliffside cave a few miles from the South African town of Still Bay. What he would find there, however, would change the way scientists think about the evolution of modern humans and the factors that triggered perhaps the most important event in human prehistory, when Homo sapiens left their African homeland to colonize the world.
This great migration brought our species to a position of world dominance that it has never relinquished and signaled the extinction of whatever competitors remained—Neanderthals in Europe and Asia, some scattered pockets of Homo erectus in the Far East and, if scholars ultimately decide they are in fact a separate species, some diminutive people from the Indonesian island of Flores (see "Were 'Hobbits' Human?"). When the migration was complete, Homo sapiens was the last— and only—man standing.
Even today researchers argue about what separates modern humans from other, extinct hominids. Generally speaking, moderns tend to be a slimmer, taller breed: "gracile," in scientific parlance, rather than "robust," like the heavy-boned Neanderthals, their contemporaries for perhaps 15,000 years in ice age Eurasia. The modern and Neanderthal brains were about the same size, but their skulls were shaped differently: the newcomers' skulls were flatter in back than the Neanderthals', and they had prominent jaws and a straight forehead without heavy brow ridges. Lighter bodies may have meant that modern humans needed less food, giving them a competitive advantage during hard times.
The moderns' behaviors were also different. Neanderthals made tools, but they worked with chunky flakes struck from large stones. Modern humans' stone tools and weapons usually featured elongated, standardized, finely crafted blades. Both species hunted and killed the same large mammals, including deer, horses, bison and wild cattle. But moderns' sophisticated weaponry, such as throwing spears with a variety of carefully wrought stone, bone and antler tips, made them more successful. And the tools may have kept them relatively safe; fossil evidence shows Neanderthals suffered grievous injuries, such as gorings and bone breaks, probably from hunting at close quarters with short, stone-tipped pikes and stabbing spears. Both species had rituals —Neanderthals buried their dead—and both made ornaments and jewelry. But the moderns produced their artifacts with a frequency and expertise that Neanderthals never matched. And Neanderthals, as far as we know, had nothing like the etching at Blombos Cave, let alone the bone carvings, ivory flutes and, ultimately, the mesmerizing cave paintings and rock art that modern humans left as snapshots of their world.
When the study of human origins intensified in the 20th century, two main theories emerged to explain the archaeological and fossil record: one, known as the multi-regional hypothesis, suggested that a species of human ancestor dispersed throughout the globe, and modern humans evolved from this predecessor in several different locations. The other, out-of-Africa theory, held that modern humans evolved in Africa for many thousands of years before they spread throughout the rest of the world.
In the 1980s, new tools completely changed the kinds of questions that scientists could answer about the past. By analyzing DNA in living human populations, geneticists could trace lineages backward in time. These analyses have provided key support for the out-of-Africa theory. Homo sapiens, this new evidence has repeatedly shown, evolved in Africa, probably around 200,000 years ago.
The first DNA studies of human evolution didn't use the DNA in a cell's nucleus—chromosomes inherited from both father and mother—but a shorter strand of DNA contained in the mitochondria, which are energy- producing structures inside most cells. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited only from the mother. Conveniently for scientists, mitochondrial DNA has a relatively high mutation rate, and mutations are carried along in subsequent generations. By comparing mutations in mitochondrial DNA among today's populations, and making assumptions about how frequently they occurred, scientists can walk the genetic code backward through generations, combining lineages in ever larger, earlier branches until they reach the evolutionary trunk.
At that point in human history, which scientists have calculated to be about 200,000 years ago, a woman existed whose mitochondrial DNA was the source of the mitochondrial DNA in every person alive today. That is, all of us are her descendants. Scientists call her "Eve." This is something of a misnomer, for Eve was neither the first modern human nor the only woman alive 200,000 years ago. But she did live at a time when the modern human population was small—about 10,000 people, according to one estimate. She is the only woman from that time to have an unbroken lineage of daughters, though she is neither our only ancestor nor our oldest ancestor. She is, instead, simply our "most recent common ancestor," at least when it comes to mitochondria. And Eve, mitochondrial DNA backtracking showed, lived in Africa.
Subsequent, more sophisticated analyses using DNA from the nucleus of cells have confirmed these findings, most recently in a study this year comparing nuclear DNA from 938 people from 51 parts of the world. This research, the most comprehensive to date, traced our common ancestor to Africa and clarified the ancestries of several populations in Europe and the Middle East.
While DNA studies have revolutionized the field of paleoanthropology, the story "is not as straightforward as people think," says University of Pennsylvania geneticist Sarah A. Tishkoff. If the rates of mutation, which are largely inferred, are not accurate, the migration timetable could be off by thousands of years.
To piece together humankind's great migration, scientists blend DNA analysis with archaeological and fossil evidence to try to create a coherent whole—no easy task. A disproportionate number of artifacts and fossils are from Europe—where researchers have been finding sites for well over 100 years—but there are huge gaps elsewhere. "Outside the Near East there is almost nothing from Asia, maybe ten dots you could put on a map," says Texas A&M University anthropologist Ted Goebel.
As the gaps are filled, the story is likely to change, but in broad outline, today's scientists believe that from their beginnings in Africa, the modern humans went first to Asia between 80,000 and 60,000 years ago. By 45,000 years ago, or possibly earlier, they had settled Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and Australia. The moderns entered Europe around 40,000 years ago, probably via two routes: from Turkey along the Danube corridor into eastern Europe, and along the Mediterranean coast. By 35,000 years ago, they were firmly established in most of the Old World. The Neanderthals, forced into mountain strongholds in Croatia, the Iberian Peninsula, the Crimea and elsewhere, would become extinct 25,000 years ago. Finally, around 15,000 years ago, humans crossed from Asia to North America and from there to South America.
Africa is relatively rich in the fossils of human ancestors who lived millions of years ago (see timeline, opposite). Lush, tropical lake country at the dawn of human evolution provided one congenial living habitat for such hominids as Australopithecus afarensis. Many such places are dry today, which makes for a congenial exploration habitat for paleontologists. Wind erosion exposes old bones that were covered in muck millions of years ago. Remains of early Homo sapiens, by contrast, are rare, not only in Africa, but also in Europe. One suspicion is that the early moderns on both continents did not—in contrast to Neanderthals—bury their dead, but either cremated them or left them to decompose in the open.
In 2003, a team of anthropologists reported the discovery of three unusual skulls—two adults and a child—at Herto, near the site of an ancient freshwater lake in northeast Ethiopia. The skulls were between 154,000 and 160,000 years old and had modern characteristics, but with some archaic features. "Even now I'm a little hesitant to call them anatomically modern," says team leader Tim White, from the University of California at Berkeley. "These are big, robust people, who haven't quite evolved into modern humans. Yet they are so close you wouldn't want to give them a different species name."
The Herto skulls fit with the DNA analysis suggesting that modern humans evolved some 200,000 years ago. But they also raised questions. There were no other skeletal remains at the site (although there was evidence of butchered hippopotamuses), and all three skulls, which were nearly complete except for jawbones, showed cut marks—signs of scraping with stone tools. It appeared that the skulls had been deliberately detached from their skeletons and defleshed. In fact, part of the child's skull was highly polished. "It is hard to argue that this is not some kind of mortuary ritual," White says.
Even more provocative were discoveries reported last year. In a cave at Pinnacle Point in South Africa, a team led by Arizona State University paleoanthropologist Curtis Marean found evidence that humans 164,000 years ago were eating shellfish, making complex tools and using red ocher pigment—all modern human behaviors. The shellfish remains—of mussels, periwinkles, barnacles and other mollusks— indicated that humans were exploiting the sea as a food source at least 40,000 years earlier than previously thought.
The first archaeological evidence of a human migration out of Africa was found in the caves of Qafzeh and Skhul, in present-day Israel. These sites, initially discovered in the 1930s, contained the remains of at least 11 modern humans. Most appeared to have been ritually buried. Artifacts at the site, however, were simple: hand axes and other Neanderthal-style tools.
At first, the skeletons were thought to be 50,000 years old—modern humans who had settled in the Levant on their way to Europe. But in 1989, new dating techniques showed them to be 90,000 to 100,000 years old, the oldest modern human remains ever found outside Africa. But this excursion appears to be a dead end: there is no evidence that these moderns survived for long, much less went on to colonize any other parts of the globe. They are therefore not considered to be a part of the migration that followed 10,000 or 20,000 years later.
Intriguingly, 70,000-year-old Neanderthal remains have been found in the same region. The moderns, it would appear, arrived first, only to move on, die off because of disease or natural catastrophe or—possibly— get wiped out. If they shared territory with Neanderthals, the more "robust" species may have outcompeted them here. "You may be anatomically modern and display modern behaviors," says paleoanthropologist Nicholas J. Conard of Germany's University of Tübingen, "but apparently it wasn't enough. At that point the two species are on pretty equal footing." It was also at this point in history, scientists concluded, that the Africans ceded Asia to the Neanderthals.
Then, about 80,000 years ago, says Blombos archaeologist Henshilwood, modern humans entered a "dynamic period" of innovation. The evidence comes from such South African cave sites as Blombos, Klasies River, Diepkloof and Sibudu. In addition to the ocher carving, the Blombos Cave yielded perforated ornamental shell beads—among the world's first known jewelry. Pieces of inscribed ostrich eggshell turned up at Diepkloof. Hafted points at Sibudu and elsewhere hint that the moderns of southern Africa used throwing spears and arrows. Fine-grained stone needed for careful workmanship had been transported from up to 18 miles away, which suggests they had some sort of trade. Bones at several South African sites showed that humans were killing eland, springbok and even seals. At Klasies River, traces of burned vegetation suggest that the ancient hunter-gatherers may have figured out that by clearing land, they could encourage quicker growth of edible roots and tubers. The sophisticated bone tool and stoneworking technologies at these sites were all from roughly the same time period— between 75,000 and 55,000 years ago.
Virtually all of these sites had piles of seashells. Together with the much older evidence from the cave at Pinnacle Point, the shells suggest that seafood may have served as a nutritional trigger at a crucial point in human history, providing the fatty acids that modern humans needed to fuel their outsize brains: "This is the evolutionary driving force," says University of Cape Town archaeologist John Parkington. "It is sucking people into being more cognitively aware, faster-wired, faster-brained, smarter." Stanford University paleoanthropologist Richard Klein has long argued that a genetic mutation at roughly this point in human history provoked a sudden increase in brainpower, perhaps linked to the onset of speech.
Did new technology, improved nutrition or some genetic mutation allow modern humans to explore the world? Possibly, but other scholars point to more mundane factors that may have contributed to the exodus from Africa. A recent DNA study suggests that massive droughts before the great migration split Africa's modern human population into small, isolated groups and may have even threatened their extinction. Only after the weather improved were the survivors able to reunite, multiply and, in the end, emigrate. Improvements in technology may have helped some of them set out for new territory. Or cold snaps may have lowered sea level and opened new land bridges.
Whatever the reason, the ancient Africans reached a watershed. They were ready to leave, and they did.
DNA evidence suggests the original exodus involved anywhere from 1,000 to 50,000 people. Scientists do not agree on the time of the departure— sometime more recently than 80,000 years ago—or the departure point, but most now appear to be leaning away from the Sinai, once the favored location, and toward a land bridge crossing what today is the Bab el Mandeb Strait separating Djibouti from the Arabian Peninsula at the southern end of the Red Sea. From there, the thinking goes, migrants could have followed a southern route eastward along the coast of the Indian Ocean. "It could have been almost accidental," Henshilwood says, a path of least resistance that did not require adaptations to different climates, topographies or diet. The migrants' path never veered far from the sea, departed from warm weather or failed to provide familiar food, such as shellfish and tropical fruit.
Tools found at Jwalapuram, a 74,000-year-old site in southern India, match those used in Africa from the same period. Anthropologist Michael Petraglia of the University of Cambridge, who led the dig, says that although no human fossils have been found to confirm the presence of modern humans at Jwalapuram, the tools suggest it is the earliest known settlement of modern humans outside of Africa except for the dead enders at Israel's Qafzeh and Skhul sites.
And that's about all the physical evidence there is for tracking the migrants' early progress across Asia. To the south, the fossil and archaeological record is clearer and shows that modern humans reached Australia and Papua New Guinea—then part of the same landmass—at least 45,000 years ago, and maybe much earlier.
But curiously, the early down under colonists apparently did not make sophisticated tools, relying instead on simple Neanderthal-style flaked stones and scrapers. They had few ornaments and little long- distance trade, and left scant evidence that they hunted large marsupial mammals in their new homeland. Of course, they may have used sophisticated wood or bamboo tools that have decayed. But University of Utah anthropologist James F. O'Connell offers another explanation: the early settlers did not bother with sophisticated technologies because they did not need them. That these people were "modern" and innovative is clear: getting to New Guinea-Australia from the mainland required at least one sea voyage of more than 45 miles, an astounding achievement. But once in place, the colonists faced few pressures to innovate or adapt new technologies. In particular, O'Connell notes, there were few people, no shortage of food and no need to compete with an indigenous population like Europe's Neanderthals.
Modern humans eventually made their first forays into Europe only about 40,000 years ago, presumably delayed by relatively cold and inhospitable weather and a less than welcoming Neanderthal population. The conquest of the continent—if that is what it was—is thought to have lasted about 15,000 years, as the last pockets of Neanderthals dwindled to extinction. The European penetration is widely regarded as the decisive event of the great migration, eliminating as it did our last rivals and enabling the moderns to survive there uncontested.
Did modern humans wipe out the competition, absorb them through interbreeding, outthink them or simply stand by while climate, dwindling resources, an epidemic or some other natural phenomenon did the job? Perhaps all of the above. Archaeologists have found little direct evidence of confrontation between the two peoples. Skeletal evidence of possible interbreeding is sparse, contentious and inconclusive. And while interbreeding may well have taken place, recent DNA studies have failed to show any consistent genetic relationship between modern humans and Neanderthals.
"You are always looking for a neat answer, but my feeling is that you should use your imagination," says Harvard University archaeologist Ofer Bar-Yosef. "There may have been positive interaction with the diffusion of technology from one group to the other. Or the modern humans could have killed off the Neanderthals. Or the Neanderthals could have just died out. Instead of subscribing to one hypothesis or two, I see a composite."
Modern humans' next conquest was the New World, which they reached by the Bering Land Bridge—or possibly by boat—at least 15,000 years ago. Some of the oldest unambiguous evidence of humans in the New World is human DNA extracted from coprolites—fossilized feces—found in Oregon and recently carbon dated to 14,300 years ago.
For many years paleontologists still had one gap in their story of how humans conquered the world. They had no human fossils from sub-Saharan Africa from between 15,000 and 70,000 years ago. Because the epoch of the great migration was a blank slate, they could not say for sure that the modern humans who invaded Europe were functionally identical to those who stayed behind in Africa. But one day in 1999, anthropologist Alan Morris of South Africa's University of Cape Town showed Frederick Grine, a visiting colleague from Stony Brook University, an unusual-looking skull on his bookcase. Morris told Grine that the skull had been discovered in the 1950s at Hofmeyr, in South Africa. No other bones had been found near it, and its original resting place had been befouled by river sediment. Any archaeological evidence from the site had been destroyed—the skull was a seemingly useless artifact.
But Grine noticed that the braincase was filled with a carbonate sand matrix. Using a technique unavailable in the 1950s, Grine, Morris and an Oxford University-led team of analysts measured radioactive particles in the matrix. The skull, they learned, was 36,000 years old. Comparing it with skulls from Neanderthals, early modern Europeans and contemporary humans, they discovered it had nothing in common with Neanderthal skulls and only peripheral similarities with any of today's populations. But it matched the early Europeans elegantly. The evidence was clear. Thirty-six thousand years ago, says Morris, before the world's human population differentiated into the ethnicities that exist today, "We were all Africans."
Looking foward to tomorrows fake arguments from Debunked, who will have no response to bolded passages from Smithsonian, for the same reason that he has had no answers to any of my questions. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
European early modern humans and the fate of the Neandertals Erik Trinkaus* Department of Anthropology, Campus Box 1114, Washington University, St. Louis, MO 653130 Contributed by Erik Trinkaus, March 9, 2007
Hofmeyr 1(13) is younger than the earliest EEMHs and therefore cannot be ancestral to them. The only other directly relevant specimen is Nazlet Khater 2, from 42 ka B.P. in Egypt (20). Approximately contemporaneous with the earliest EEMHs (21), it may represent the morphology of modern humans dispersing out of Africa after 50 ka B.P. However, in some features it is more archaic than the MPMHs, which raises questions as to the degree to which its ancestry was purely from the MPMHs and therefore whether it represents the ancestral modern human morphology. The primary sample of analysis consists of the EEMHs, those before 33 ka B.P. and therefore predating the Gravettian (or Middle Upper Paleolithic) populations of Europe. As a result of an ongoing cleansing of the fossil record through direct radiometric dating, a series of obviously modern, and in fact Late Upper Paleolithic or Holocene, human remains have been removed from consideration (7). This cleansing hashelped to dilute the impression that the earliest modernhumans in Europe were just like recent European populations.
Conclusions
The human paleontological record of EEMHs is the ultimate test of the phylogenetic fate of the Neandertals. Its indications are clear. Early modern Europeans reflect both their predominant African early modern human ancestry and asubstantial degree of admixture between those early modern humans andthe indigenous Neandertals. Given the tens of millennia since then and the limitations inherent in ancient DNA, this process is largely invisible in the molecular record. It is readily apparent in the paleontological record.Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hofmeyr 1 (13) is younger than the earliest EEMHs and therefore cannot be ancestral to them.
^ Right, but lets get one thing clear. Even if the Hofmeyr skull was literally the grandmother of every non African, it would only affirm "Out of Africa" theory of anthropology and debunk Eurocentrism.
Out of Africa theorists expect to be able to show that the 1st non Africans, Oceanic, Asian, Eurasian.... should show craniometric affinity with their African contemporaries, as they are quite literally off shoots of same.
What OOA theory expects is such diversity in Africa that it is plausible that Australians, Chinese, Nordics, so called pygmy of South Asia, etc..... could all stem from a single African population [as genetics implies]. And this is what is increasingly evidenced.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: ^ Right, but lets get one thing clear. Even if the Hofmeyr skull was literally the grandmother of every non African, it would only affirm "Out of Africa" theory of anthropology and debunk Eurocentrism.
But of course, and such is the case, even though the fossil is younger than EEMH, he is still an affirmation, of similar skulls found in South Africa, to ones found in EUP in Europe, and still not 'Caucasoid'.
Originally posted by rasol
quote:Out of Africa theorists expect to be able to show that the 1st non Africans, Oceanic, Asian, Eurasian.... should show craniometric affinity with their African contemporaries, as they are quite literally off shoots of same.
Which is also proven, through homfeyr, and I believe Nazlet Khater 2 was used for comparison, and the EUP also showed affinities to Nazlet 2, despite displaying admixed Neanderthal features.
Originally posted by rasol
quote: What OOA theory expects is such diversity in Africa that it is plausible that Australians, Chinese, Nordics, so called pygmy of South Asia, etc..... could all stem from a single African population [as genetics implies]. And this is what is increasingly evidenced.
This is what happens when you speak the truth, there will always be evidence upon evidence to back you up. Isn't it grand? Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, "blowing the whistle" on pervasive Eurocentric lies is filled with endless joy, mainly due to the endless stream of evidence. It is addictive. Posts: 6 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
"There are implications for the origins of modern races, too. Herto (and Jebel Irhoud) are H. sapiens, but with primitive features. They are not, racially speaking, Africans. The later Omo and Klasies remains are more modern, but they too are archaic, and certainly show no traces of the features that characterise any modern races. Only Qafzeh and Skhul seem to lack these primitive features, and rate as "generalised modern humans". Our species seems to have existed as an entity long, long before it began to spread outside Africa or the Middle East, let alone split into geographic races."
"The role of the Nazlet Khater 2 skeleton is also debatable; it has two plesiomorphic mandible features absent in the MPMHs, suggesting that its post-MPMH ancestors may have experienced admixture with regional late archaic humans.
[...]
"However, in some features it is more archaic than the MPMHs, which raises questions as to the degree to which its ancestry was purely from the MPMHs and therefore whether it represents the ancestral modern human morphology."
Comparing it with skulls from Neanderthals, early modern Europeans and contemporary humans, they discovered it had nothing in common with Neanderthal skulls and only peripheral similarities with any of today's populations.
Your edited graph is also geometrically "challenged" as it draws across the vertices that denote clusters in order to create and fake cluster corresponding to *no* vertex.
^ I'm saying you're and idiot and can't read graphs or interpret data. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
In your distorted graph [above] there are 7 vertices, reading top to bottom and left to right.
Vertex 1: combines Bantu and San [African is only Bantu in this sample]
Vertex 2: combines Bantu, San, North Africa, New mGuinea/Australia [Oceania], East Asia and Europe. [you blind yourself to this one i guess]
Vertex 3: East Asia, and Oceania, only
Vertex 4: East Asia, Oceania and Europe
Vertex 5: East Asia, Oceania, Europe and North Africa.
Vertex 6: Paleolithic crania only [this is because they share so called arhaic features like brow ridges which few modern populations have, it's clear that you also don't 'get' this, lol]
Vertex 7: All homo sapiens.
Your blue rectangle corresponds to *none* of the 7 vertexes, rather it combines 3 - 7 while excluding 1, and 2.
- There is no common vertex linking Upper Paleolithic populations to everyone accept Africans.
The accurate way to 'edit' the graph is to divide on vertex, as Tyr0 did...
^ Here is a more accurate, edited graph:
In Tyr0's graph red is vertex 3, and blue is vertex 8 - it's easy when you actually follow the vertices.
Debunked: do you notice how he draws *at* the vertices, and not across them?
That's why I give Tyr0 a B plus for elemenary geometry.
This is false. Herto would've looked just like the picture below, per Chris stringer. He said Herto was more robust, but his face would've looked as it does in this picture, i.e., a broad wide flat face, and prognathous. The thing Chris stated for the reason Herto is unlike modern humans, is because he does possess some archaic features, and is more robust, but don't be an idiot, and think for a second, that a modern human, no matter how old, wouldn't look like us today in some way, why else would it be called a modern human, if it didn't have features as modern humans today? Exactly, the skulls obviously do have modern features, and that's the way anthropologists are able to keep track of the OOA migration, you nincompoop!!
While this may be true, you have to understand, the EEMH, did, in fact, show affinities to Nazlet, and Skhul, and were tropically adapted, everything, hinting recent African origin. Just because the Nazlet had shown archaic features, this didn't stop Nazlet, from showing affinities with EEMH, because it did show affiniTIES. Sorry.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:While this may be true, you have to understand, the EEMH, did, in fact, show affinities to Nazlet, and Skhul, and were tropically adapted, everything, hinting recent African origin. Just because the Nazlet had shown archaic features
Hofmeyr also has so called archaic features. As did Upper Paleolithic Eurasians, so I'm not sure what your point is here.
One of the most common 'so called' archaic feature is 'brow ridges'.
Of modern populations only some Oceanians typically have this feature.
As I explained earlier this is why of all modern humans Oceanians are most likely to show superfluous 'skull affinity' with Hofmeyr.
Hofmeyr is similar in size to Eurasian UP crania, it differs from them in other respects (such as its broad nose and continuous supraorbital tori).
^ supraorbital tori = brow ridges.
This is why Hofmyer skull is significant, because it has some of these features.
Nazlet Khater is equally significant because it has and affinity with later skeletans found in Sudan and Nubia.
Nazlet Khater is every bit as representative as any other skeletan.
Be careful before you co-sign any little bit of Debunked nonsense.
Your best bit is to assume every word out of his mouth is garbage. You will be right 98% of the time.
Nazlet Khater: The results indicate a strong association between some of the sub-Saharan Middle Stone Age (MSA) specimens, and the Nazlet Khater mandible.
^ This is earliest known skeletan from Egypt, and it does specifically resemble later skeletan from Nile Valley Africa.
The South African Hofmyer - does not resemble *current* Europeans....at all.
To Debunked: It does not matter that you run away from all facts presented in our posts and fail to answer our questions, while attempting to bait and deceive others, with sheer nonsense.
We will continue to expose you for the fool you are regardless.
quote:Hofmeyr also has so called archaic features. As did Upper Paleolithic Eurasians, so I'm not sure what your point is here.
Yes.....I know, and is the case with Nazlet 2. EEMH showed affinities to Nazlet 2, as well as it does hofmeyr, so both are "representatives" of similar populations in Africa, at the time of EEMH entering, and being in Europe, regardless of archaic features, since EEMH also possessed many Neanderthal features as well. That was my point, since "debunked" mentioned Nazlets archaic features. I was informing him, regardless EEMH, still showed ties to Nazlet, so it doesn't matter.
------- This is what really matters anyway.
As a result of an ongoing cleansing of the fossil record through direct radiometric dating, a series of obviously modern, and in fact Late Upper Paleolithic or Holocene, human remains have been removed from consideration (7). This cleansing hashelped to dilute the impression that the earliest modern humans in Europe were just like recent European populations.
Conclusions
The human paleontological record of EEMHs is the ultimate test of the phylogenetic fate of the Neandertals. Itsindications are clear.Early modern Europeans reflect both theirpredominant African early modern human ancestry and a substantial degree of admixture between those early modern humans and the indigenous Neandertals. Given the tens of millennia since then and the limitations inherent in ancient DNA, this process is largely invisible in the molecular record. It is readily apparent in the paleontological record.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
It's also important to challenge the coded language behind 'archaic' features.
Some anthropologists have argued that features like 'brow ridges' in Australia/New Guinea prove that these populations must be descendant from ancient local homo erectus - like Java Man - and not recent African homo sapiens.
This argument is predicated on the idea that Paleolithic Africans do not evidence these features - and so cannot be the source of them.
That's why, when these features are found in Paleolithic Africa it lends further credence to Out of Africa.
Another example of this is 'sinodonty' - shovel shaped incisors common in Chinese, and also found in some early Chinese homo erectus.
However sinodonty [so called] has also been found in Kenyan homo erectus....so.
Notice also the use of the term 'archaic' to references features found in modern Chinese or Australians, but seldom is this term used to reference things like - 'extensive body hair' or 'fur', which some Europeans have and which is common trait of apes, that most modern humans no longer have.
Body hair is just as "archaic" as brow ridges... or neither are "archaic".
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:and a substantial degree of admixture between those early modern humans and the indigenous Neandertals.
^ There is no evidence that Europeans are mixed with neanderthal. Genetics argues against it, skeletal evidence is circumstantial, subjective and speculative.
It is easy to distinguish homo sapien skeletal material from Neanderthal.
However it is not clear, that Neanderthal, is any more likened to European skeletally than any other population.
It depends upon what you measure and how you value what is measured.
For example, Neanderthal had very high levels of prognathism, which current Europeans generally don't have.
Brace, and others who once claimed Neanderthal ancestry for Europeans, either de-emphasise, or completely disregard this descrepency in their "batteries of tests".
In science-theory, this error is known as 'confirmation bias'.
It means you only look for evidence that would confirm your theory, and ignore evidence that would contradict it.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Some anthropologists have argued that features like 'brow ridges' in Australia/New Guinea prove that these populations must be descendant from ancient local homo erectus - like Java Man - and not recent African homo sapiens.
This argument is predicated on the idea that Paleolithic Africans do not evidence these features - and so cannot be the source of them.
That's why, when these features are found in Paleolithic Africa it lends further credence to Out of Africa.
Exactly. All the evidence is falling into place. Also, Australians exhibiting archaic brow-ridges, and the findings of hofmeyr, being similar to EEMH, and in turn similarities to Nazlet 2, only confirms, the morphology and the features of the EMH, OOA, as well as EEMH when reaching Europe, resembled, as Chris Stringer has been saying all along Australians and Africans.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:^ There is no evidence that Europeans are mixed with neanderthal. Genetics argues against it, skeletal evidence is circumstantial, subjective and speculative.
Lol I know, but it's funny. Not genetically, but Trinkaus is skeptical and does see similarities in Early moderns in Europe. Doesn't matter really, since we know, there is no genetic evidence.
" Given the tens of millennia since then and the limitations inherent in ancient DNA, this process is largely invisible in the molecular record. It is readily apparent in the paleontological record."Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
Thanx u guys, nice job: was wondering why The Euro boxed everyone in down to the HOF and Upper Paleolithic Eurasians - without connecting the San and African [bantu only] twigs - although according to vertices he would have done better to and might as well have boxed in the entire shebbang (albeit to no point even). Also nice article rasol btw.
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
quote:^ There is no evidence that Europeans are mixed with neanderthal. Genetics argues against it, skeletal evidence is circumstantial, subjective and speculative.
Lol I know, but it's funny.
LOL - I know!
Early on after I first noticed Mathilda (see the "Counter ES AE&E sites" thread) on Yaho! Answers I noticed a strong desire to connect their origins/ancestors to Neanderthal - in *a certain* community.
Kinda strange, but whatever's whatever.
Citing evidence for environmental aptitude of Neanderthal and scavenging and sharing small tidbits about "Neanderthal may have been 'smarter' than 'we' thought" and whatnot.
I didn't touch it.
.
It's funny - didn't give it 2 seconds of thought but I now come to know racist (at least in persona) afrocentrists claim the same thing. (o: It is whatever it's gon' be.
Posts: 5555 | From: Tha 5th Dimension. | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Citing evidence for environmental aptitude of Neanderthal and scavenging and sharing small tidbits about Neanderthal may have been "smarter" than 'we' thought.
Eurocentric anthropology has never recovered from the shattering blow that OutOfAfrica delt it.
- Multi-regionalism.
- Neanderthal as caucasian progenitor.
- East African k-zoids.
all = Eurocentric death scream.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
^ Not according to anthropologist CL Brace, or anyone with a pair of eyes...
Better yet, not according to anyone who does not defy logic.
Simple common sense: Herto — a pre-OOA specimen — did not come from outside of Africa, and so cannot morphologically be "non-African". The guy puts the term in quotation marks, precisely because he/she is well aware of its lack of logical premise. He/she is essentially acknowledging that such a thing doesn't exist, but would welcome others to entertain the thought.
Likewise...
quote:Originally posted by Knowledgeiskey718:
Originally posted by debunked
quote:- Herto is morphologically "non-African":
This is false.
Saying that it is false, assumes that what was said makes sense in the first place [albeit just not true].
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Homo Sapiens at the time of Herto is morphologically African.
There are no non African homo sapiens and therefore there are no non African morphologies.
Neanderthal - is a morphologically European hominid.
Tracing the spread of and identifiably African morphology into Eurasia is the basis of OutOfAfrica to begin with. Remember 'hominids' are native to Asia, Europe and Oceania from many 100's of thousands of years - and perhaps over a million.
If there were 'no such thing' as distinct African morphology there could then be no physical evidence of the Out of Africa theory.
Of course the 1st non Africans therefore had to have and African morphology per the theory of Out of Africa.
This is also reiterrated by genetics, as shown...
^ This is why we challenge Phenozine, and Debunked to explain how dividing humanity into Africans and non Africans [such as Andaman Islander], can show the antiquity of European whites, who simply *do not exist*, at the time of OOA.
European morphologies begin evolving when CroMagnon [who still appeared to be more African than European] entered Europe 35 thousand years ago.
The trademark component of European morphology [leucoderma], afterwhich they namesake themselves whites, is, at best 10 to 15 thousand years old. No more.
quote:Precisely because [Debunked] is well aware of its lack of logical premise.
^ Yes. And this is why Debunked keeps running away from the reality of the non existence of Europeans, of whites, of caucasians, in ancient history.
To understand why Debunked makes such doomed and humiliating arguments, you have to 'feel his pain', anguish and desparation in the face of.... Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
"Skin color is one of the most conspicuous ways in which humans vary and has been widely used to define human races. Here we present new evidence indicating that variations in skin color are adaptive, and are related to the regulation of ultraviolet (UV) radiation penetration.... Skin coloration in humans is adaptive and labile. Skin pigmentation levels have changed more than once in human evolution. Because of this, skin coloration is of no value in determining phylogenetic relationships among modern human groups." -- Jablonski/Chaplin, 2000
Now to get back on topic...
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
- Herto is "not, racially speaking, African". Crystal clear statement by Dr. Groves. Nothing more to say on the subject, as neither Brace nor Stringer address the issue of race.
- Nazlet Khater is not representative of modern humans from East Africa because it's admixed with archaic forms, giving it "sub-Saharan" affinities that are not shared by MPMHs.
- Hofmeyr is not admixed in this way, so it is representative of modern humans from East Africa, just as Grine says:
"Dr. Grine said these modern humans probably originated in East Africa, which is rich in fossils of ancestors of the species, and had then moved into Eurasia and also south to the tip of Africa."
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, my cluster corresponds to the data better than the Afrocentric fantasy cluster proposed earlier in this thread, which was nonsensical and contradicted the main conclusion of the study.
The salient findings are:
- Hofmeyr shows strong affinities with Upper Paleolithic Eurasians and is unlike recent Africans and Khoisan.
- Upper Paleolithic Eurasians are closer to their recent descendents than they are to the Africans or the Khoisan.
- Hofmeyr is closer to recent Western Eurasians than it is to the Africans or the Khoisan.
- Oceanians and Epipaleolithic North Africans group with fellow "non-Africans" from Eurasia.
These findings effectively demolish the Afrocentrists' claims that all of the above peoples (save for the Western and Eastern Eurasians) were/are essentially "black Africans". That's simply false.
Posts: 128 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Three threads later and still no answer from Debunker to this:
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Evil Euro is following the logic of those who have it backwards as his own source stated, which he tried to take out of context and distort. The question still remains Evil Euro, if CR-M168 is "non-African" and haplogroup E is a descendant of CR-M168 are E3a carrying West Africans and Bantu speakers "non-African" paternally? using Howells' logic combined with your distorted view of genetics, E3a bantu speakers would have made East Africa "less-African", since they didn't carry haplogroups A and B with them predominately during Bantu migrations[since using your distorted logic, only haplogroups A and B are the only "true African" paternal lineages]. Don't try to mix genetics and bioanthropology together, you always fail like you did when you posted a female as proof of a E3b carrying African, rememeber?
The notion of Hofmeyr being "Caucasoid" has been refuted.
The notion that all carriers of downstream lineages descending from M168 are all "non-African" is refuted. Debunker could not answer the question in quotes above.
East Africans along with Pygmies and some South African Khoisan carry the highest frequencies of haplogroups A and B paternally, especially EAs but according the Debunker EAs are less African than E3a carrying West and Central Africans who would be less African by Debunker's logic. His analysis of the data doesn't add up to what the data is actually saying.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: Of course, my cluster corresponds to the data better than the Afrocentric fantasy cluster proposed earlier in this thread, which was nonsensical and contradicted the main conclusion of the study.
Yours is a distortion.
The salient findings are:
quote:- Hofmeyr shows strong affinities with Upper Paleolithic Eurasians and is unlike recent Africans and Khoisan.
True, half way, they only tested Khoisan and Dogon and Teita, not all recent Africans
quote:- Upper Paleolithic Eurasians are closer to their recent descendents than they are to the Africans or the Khoisan.
And
quote:- Hofmeyr is closer to recent Western Eurasians than it is to the Africans or the Khoisan.
Hofmeyr is closest to Oceanians who are in turn closest to recent Africans. Oceanians are not "caucasoids".
quote:- Oceanians and Epipaleolithic North Africans group with fellow "non-Africans" from Eurasia.
Epipaleolithic North Africans are Africans, not non-African and Oceanians are very close to recent Africans used in this study.
Posts: 2595 | From: Vicksburg | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Debunked writes: Of course, my cluster denotes....
^ ....that you're retarded???
Yes, of course.
And here's proof that you're retarded. Debunked's retarded claims.
^ The above is illiterate and innumerate, almost unfathomably stupid in fact, as you ignore the vertices that would denote actual clusters, and draw lines right across them, essentially trying to force a round peg into a square hole.
This can only indicate that you do not understand this chart...at all.
Are you not capable of elementary geometry?
You -must- bound *at* the vertex, [on the right], capture everything to the left [and within them]. Idiot.
Like this.... ^Tyr0's correct graph.
Do not ignore vertices and draw across them, once you do that, you contradict the data, and your drawing [defacement actually] is wrong, and so pointless.
Or, just keep trying to force the round peg into the square hole like some retarded monkey.
It's your choice.
lol. Your stupidity is hilarious. Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The results indicate a strong association between some of the sub-Saharan Middle Stone Age (MSA) specimens, and the Nazlet Khater mandible.
quote:Debunked claims: Nazlet Khater is not representative of modern humans from East Africa because it's admixed with archaic forms.
^It seems Eurocentrists can only make lame excuses when encountering data that destroys their ideology.
Hybridisation with non homo-sapiens [which would be what pray tell at 33 thousand years ago... a waundering Neanderthal?] would make Nazlet Khater appear less like homo-sapiens, and would not account for the strong affinity with later Nile Valley Africans.
Your position on archaic features is also contradictory, since Homefry also has archaic features:
ie - Thus, Hofmeyr is seemingly primitive in comparison to recent African crania .
Not to mention how easy it is to produce a dozen similarly flawed claims by anthropologists that current Europeans themselves are non representative of Homo-sapiens and -HYBRID- between Homo Sapien and Neanderthal.
Excuses are not answers, you fail to address the fact that Nazlet Khater crania resemble Africans, particularly later Africans of Egypt and Sudan and, do not resemble Europeans - at all.
quote:Originally posted by Evergreen: A description of the Omo I postcranial skeleton, including newly discovered fossils
Osbjorn M. Pearson
Journal of Human Evolution
August 2008
"While it once may have been reasonable to interpret the presence of these ‘‘Neandertal-like’’ features in Eurasian early modern humans as potential evidence of gene flow from neighboring and contemporaneous Neandertal populations, the presence of these features in Omo I raises the distinct possibility that Eurasian early modern humans inherited these features from an African ancestor rather than Neandertals."
quote:- Herto is "not, racially speaking, African". Crystal clear statement by Dr. Groves. Nothing more to say on the subject, as neither Brace nor Stringer address the issue of race.
Actually Race is Moot! Chris Stringer did in fact say that the reconstruction is exactly how Herto would have looked, and thats the bottom line. Herto was from Africa, looked like an African, but you say he wasn't African? Lmao.
quote: - Nazlet Khater is not representative of modern humans from East Africa because it's admixed with archaic forms, giving it "sub-Saharan" affinities that are not shared by MPMHs.
Actually, Nazlet 2 showed affinities to EEMH and Africans in the test. You're delusional
quote: - Hofmeyr is not admixed in this way, so it is representative of modern humans from East Africa, just as Grine says:
Actually Hofmeyr did show archaic features as well, so what's your point?
This is what really matters anyway.
As a result of an ongoing cleansing of the fossil record through direct radiometric dating, a series of obviously modern, and in fact Late Upper Paleolithic or Holocene, human remains have been removed from consideration (7). This cleansing hashelped to dilute the impression that the earliest modern humans in Europe were just like recent European populations.
Conclusions
The human paleontological record of EEMHs is the ultimate test of the phylogenetic fate of the Neandertals. Itsindications are clear.Early modern Europeans reflect both theirpredominant African early modern human ancestry and a substantial degree of admixture between those early modern humans and the indigenous Neandertals. Given the tens of millennia since then and the limitations inherent in ancient DNA, this process is largely invisible in the molecular record. It is readily apparent in the paleontological record. [/QB][/QUOTE]
All of this has been addressed, so why are you rehashing it?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Debunker: Crystal clear statement by Dr. Groves. Nothing more to say on the subject.
^ lol. Well of course, that's up to you, since you were debunked on this subject years ago, remember?
quote: Thought Writes:
What you have presented from Groves is simply an assumption, not a peer-reviewed scientific analysis. Peer review is the accepted method within the scientific community to evaluate any given hypothesis.
Groves assumption is either ill-informed or inconsistent. For example, he claims that "Generalized Moderns" and Sub-Saharan Africans share "no traces of the features that characterise any modern races", yet in a more RECENT, **peer-reviewed** study Joel Irish finds shared phenotypic traits when comparing "Generalized Moderns" and modern Sub-Saharan Africans.
Thought Posts:
Ancient teeth and modern human origins: an expanded comparison of African Plio-Pleistocene and recent world dental samples.
J Hum Evol. 2003 Aug;45(2):113-44.
Irish et al.
"...sub-Saharan Africans again exhibit the closest phenetic similarity to various African Plio-Pleistocene hominins-through their shared prevalence of morphologically complex crown and root traits. The fact that sub-Saharan Africans express these apparently plesiomorphic characters, along with additional information on their affinity to other modern populations, evident intra-population heterogeneity, and a world-wide dental cline emanating from the sub-continent, provides further evidence that is consistent with an African origin model."
Thought Writes:
In another RECENT, **peer-reviewed** study Neves et al. note affinity between the same **generalized** morphology and modern Sub-Saharans, Melaneseans and Australian Blacks.
Thought Posts:
J Hum Evol. 2005 Apr;48(4):403-14. Related Articles, Links
A new early Holocene human skeleton from Brazil: implications for the settlement of the New World.
Neves et al.
"The Paleoamerican morphological pattern is more **generalized** and can be seen today among Africans, Australians, and Melanesians."
Thought Writes:
Groves claims out of one side of his mouth that "...each race is VERY heterogenous", yet just because SOME **generalized moderns** have prominent brow ridges he disassociates them from Modern Sub-Saharan Africans even though they have all the other phenotypic traits. If each race is very heretogenous, then prominent brow ridges does not disassociate **generalized moderns** from the Black "race".
^ Say no more then, and *stay* debunked.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Skin coloration is of no value in determining phylogenetic relationships among modern human groups." -- Jablonski/Chaplin, 2000
^ Indeed.
Also....
Dark skin evolved with the loss of 'fur' in hominids and is the original state of all homo sapiens. - Jablonski. [2000]
The original human population would have been very dark, similar to, today's equatorial Africans. - Jablonski [2006]
By 1.2 million years ago, all people having descendants today had exactly the receptor protein of today's Africans; their skin was Black, and the intense sun *killed off the progeny with any whiter skin* that resulted from mutational variation in the receptor protein- - (Rogers 2004:107).
quote:Debunked writes: I have nothing more to say.
Again, then say no more, and stay debunked.
Stand mute against the following facts.
- The original population was Black African.
- The 1st non African migrants into Eurasia were Black.
At the time of outmigration from Africa.
- there are no whites. - there are no europeans. - there are no caucasians. - this means by definition, there can be no phylogenetic indicators of any such non-existent peoples.
quote:Debunked writes: Back on topic
^ topic = caucasoid myth. This post is precisely on topic. Too bad you can't address it.
If you have no answers to the above, then you have no basis for asserting your myth.
You are effectively debunked.
Isn't that so?
Now, go back to school and learn how to graph.
Posts: 15202 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic