posted
“A new paper published by Professor Úlfur Árnason, a neuroscientist at the University of Lund in Sweden, places the last common ancestor of Homo sapiens sapiens and Neanderthals somewhere in Eurasia. Árnason argues that the ancestors of the African KhoeSan and Mbuti populations formed the first exodus of Homo sapiens sapiens into Africa from Asia and Europe. It is commonly held that the original members of the Homo sapiens species, lived somewhere in Africa and that Homo sapiens sapiens emerged first on the same continent. The majority of scientists believe that only the exact dating of the emergence of our sub-species remains to be resolved. Not so fast, says Professor Árnason, his research suggests that the origination of the Homo sapiens sapiens sub-species was a Eurasian affair. Scientific research suggests that Neanderthals and modern humans parted ways, genetically, sometime earlier than 500,000 years ago. Árnason argues that this date, along with what is known of Neanderthal geographic range, places the first of our own sub-species somewhere in Eurasia.” http://ancientnews.net/2017/09/16/the-out-of-europeasia-into-africa-theory-of-human-origins-new-paper-calls-for-paradigm-displacement/
Eurocentrists have begun a full assault on promoting the idea that anatomically modern humans originated in Europe and migrated into Africa. There is no archaeological evidence supporting this imagined migration, so they are using population statistical genetics models to support this claim.
Interesting paper. It is just another paper aimed at promoting the idea that homo sapien sapiens originated in Eurasia .
Árnason is using statistical genetic models to argue that the ancestors of the African Khoisan and Mbuti populations formed the first exodus of Homo sapiens sapiens into Africa from Asia and Europe. This would be a joke but the paper was published in a mainstream journal. It would be considered a joke because the Khoisan originated in South Africa And the archaeological evidence supports their migration from South Africa up through North Africa into Iberia were they introduced the Aurignacian and Solutrean cultures.
posted
Eurocentrists want to situate the ancestors of the Khoisan and Mubti in Eurasia, because the skeletal remains of the ancient Europeans are of Khoisan/Bushmen and Pygmies.
The Aurignacian civilization was founded by the Cro-Magnon people who originated in Africa. They took this culture to Western Europe across the Straits of Gibraltar. The Cro-Magnon people were probably Bushman/Khoisan.
There have been numerous "Negroid skeletons" found in Europe. Marcellin Boule and Henri Vallois, in Fossil Man, provide an entire chapter on the Africans/Negroes of Europe Anta Diop also discussed the Negroes of Europe in Civilization or Barbarism, pp.25-68. Also W.E. B. DuBois, discussed these Negroes in the The World and Africa, pp.86-89. DuBois noted that "There was once a an "uninterrupted belt' of Negro culture from Central Europe to South Africa" (p.88).
Boule and Vallois, note that "To sum up, in the most ancient skeletons from the Grotte des Enfants we have a human type which is readily comparable to modern types and especially to the Negritic or Negroid type" (p.289). They continue, "Two Neolithic individuals from Chamblandes in Switzerland are Negroid not only as regards their skulls but also in the proportions of their limbs. Several Ligurian and Lombard tombs of the Metal Ages have also yielded evidences of a Negroid element.
Since the publication of Verneau's memoir, discoveries of other Negroid skeletons in Neolithic levels in Illyria and the Balkans have been announced. The prehistoric statues, dating from the Copper Age, from Sultan Selo in Bulgaria are also thought to protray Negroids.
In 1928 Rene Bailly found in one of the caverns of Moniat, near Dinant in Belgium, a human skeleton of whose age it is difficult to be certain, but seems definitely prehistoric. It is remarkable for its Negroid characters, which give it a reseblance to the skeletons from both Grimaldi and Asselar (p.291).
Boule and Vallois, note that "We know now that the ethnography of South African tribes presents many striking similarities with the ethnography of our populations of the Reindeer Age. Not to speak of their stone implements which, as we shall see later , exhibit great similarities, Peringuey has told us that in certain burials on the South African coast 'associated with the Aurignacian or Solutrean type industry...."(p.318-319). They add, that in relation to Bushman art " This almost uninterrupted series leads us to regard the African continent as a centre of important migrations which at certain times may have played a great part in the stocking of Southern Europe. Finally, we must not forget that the Grimaldi Negroid skeletons sho many points of resemblance with the Bushman skeletons". They bear no less a resemblance to that of the fossil Man discovered at Asslar in mid-Sahara, whose characters led us to class him with the Hottentot-Bushman group.
The Boule and Vallois research makes it clear that the Bushman expanded across Africa on into Europe via Spain as the Grimaldi people. This makes it clear that the Bushman/Khoisan people were not isolated in South Africa.
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Solutreans were Africans. The archaeological and craniometric measurements show that the Solutreans were Africans, namely Bushmen or Khoisan. The Aurignacian civilization was founded by the Cro-Magnon people who originated in Africa. They took this culture to Western Europe across the Straits of Gibraltar. The Cro-Magnon people were probably Bushman/Khoi.
There have been numerous "Negroid skeletons" found in Europe. Marcellin Boule and Henri Vallois, in Fossil Man, provide an entire chapter on the Africans/Negroes of Europe Anta Diop also discussed the Negroes of Europe in Civilization or Barbarism, pp.25-68. Also W.E. B. DuBois, discussed these Negroes in the The World and Africa, pp.86-89. DuBois noted that "There was once a an "uninterrupted belt' of Negro culture from Central Europe to South Africa" (p.88).
Many researchers have recognized that the Solutrean culture of Iberia probably originated in Africa(Burkitt, 2012; Childe, 2001; Debenath et al.,1986; Debenath and Dibble, 1994; Tiffagom, 2007).
It is the mainstream view of Spanish prehistorians that the Solutrean culture originated in Africa (Pericot,1950). Boule and Vallois (1957) noted that ancient tool kits found in South African burials along the coast are associated with the Solutrean industry.
Pericot (1950, 1955) believed that the tanged points at the Parpallo site of the Solutrean were of Aterian cultural origin. Burkitt (2012) said that there were Algerian tools similar to the Solutrean tool kit. Gordon Childe (2009) claimed that the North African and Spanish populations that used the Solutrean tools were in direct communication. By the 1960’s, though, Smith (54) was able to reject the hypothesis of an African origin for the Solutrean culture.
Boule and Vallois in , Fossil men : elements of human palaeontology, noted that "We know now that the ethnography of South African tribes presents many striking similarities with the ethnography of our populations of the Reindeer Age. Not to speak of their stone implements which, as we shall see later , exhibit great similarities, Peringuey has told us that in certain burials on the South African coast 'associated with the Aurignacian or Solutrean type industry...."(p.318-319).
They add, that in relation to Bushman art " This almost uninterrupted series leads us to regard the African continent as a centre of important migrations which at certain times may have played a great part in the stocking of Southern Europe.
Finally, we must not forget that the Grimaldi Negroid skeletons sho many points of resemblance with the Bushman skeletons". They bear no less a resemblance to that of the fossil Man discovered at Asslar in mid-Sahara, whose characters led us to class him with the Hottentot-Bushman group.
Abstract The substantiality of the Out of Africa hypothesis was addressed in the light of recent genomic analysis of extant humans (Homo sapiens sapiens, Hss) and progress in Neanderthal palaeontology. The examination lent no support to the commonly assumed Out of Africa scenario but favoured instead a Eurasian divergence between Neanderthals and Hss (the Askur/Embla hypothesis) and an Out of Asia/Eurasia hypothesis according to which all other parts of the world were colonized by Hss migrations from Asia. The examination suggested furthermore that the ancestors of extant KhoeSan and Mbuti composed the first Hss dispersal(s) into Africa and that the ancestors of Yoruba made up a later wave into the same continent. The conclusions constitute a change in paradigm for the study of human evolution.
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Gene appears to be a field recognized organ.
AncientNews.net articles on published papers remain fringe in my estimation. Go visit it.
The Árnason paper is a personal effort and out of his field (brain surgery). No team of 'population' scientists involved. Also, to date, per Science Direct.com no other papers cite it.
The Out of Africa hypothesis and the ancestry of recent humans: Cherchez la femme (et l'homme)
Úlfur Árnason Department of Brain Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Lund, Sweden
abstract The Out of Africa hypothesis (OOAH) has been a mainstay in the discussion of human evolution since its presentation in the 1980's. However, recent advances in palaeontology and molecular genetics have made it possible to examine the hypothesis in a manner that was inconceivable at the time of its proposal. The palaeontological progress relates to early Homo finds in the Caucasus, Denisova finds in the Altai Mountains and Neanderthal finds in a wide range of localities from the Altai Mountains, the Caucasus, the Levant, Asia Minor, southern and Central Europe and the Iberian Peninsula. The Eurasian location of these finds and recognition of the principle of Last common ancestor (LCA) lend no support to OOAH. The same conclusion is drawn from genomic findings, which (a) have revealed the presence of Denisovan and Neanderthal nuclear DNA, primarily in the genomes of recent Eurasians and (b) have shown genomic introgression from early modern humans into Neanderthals in the Altai Mountains. Similarly, archaeological finds in Sulawesi and the discovery of ≈100,000 years old human teeth in southern China constitute strong independent challenges to OOAH. The genomic and palaeogenomic results and the
new palaeontological and archaeological discoveries suggest
(a) that the ancestors of modern humans had their origin in a Eurasian (largely Asian) biogeographic region which may also have extended into NE Africa, and
(b) that the founders of basal African lineages became separated, geographically and genetically, in the westernmost part of this region and spread from there to different parts of the African continent.
1. Introduction “... They came across two logs and created people out of them. ... The man was called Ask (Icelandic: Askur), the woman Embla, and from them were produced the mankind ...” (Sturluson, ≈ 1220). OOAH posits a dispersal of the ancestors of recent humans from Africa. Cann et al. (1987) provided the essential molecular basis of the hypothesis in a study that included a phylogenetic tree based on restric- tion maps of human mitochondrial DNA molecules (mtDNAs). The basal split of the tree was between a branch that contained exclusively African individuals and a branch that split between an African branch and a branch that consisted of mtDNAs of different geographic origins. The interpretation of the finding was that the basal split among the ancestors of modern humans had taken place in Africa between a branch that had remained intact in Africa and another African branch from which other human lineages had departed at different times to other parts of the world. OOAH has become acknowledged in a great number of molecular and non-molecular studies of human evolution. The hypothesis has also been taken as rebutting the so-called multiregional hypothesis on the origin and evolution of modern humans advocated by M. H. Wolpoff and co‐ workers (e.g. Wolpoff et al. 2000). There is, however, a fundamental and hitherto disregarded circumstance connected to OOAH, namely the African placement superimposed on the root of the tree. That position may have appeared reasonable at the time of the initial studies due to the paucity of the non-African hominid palaeontological record. Even so it should have been apparent that the very implementation of this root had the automatic effect that the direction of any early human transfer could never be into Africa, only out of or within that continent. O'Regan et al. (2011) and Turner and O'Regan (2015) examined the palaeontological record related to the dispersal of large mammals between Africa and Eurasia during Pliocene–Pleistocene. Although the studies were inconclu- sive with respect to OOAH they showed that mammalian dispersal between Africa and Asia was by no means a one-way route. The phylogenetic relationship of recent humans, Neanderthals and Denisovans as recovered in studies of complete mtDNAs is shown schematically in Fig. 1. The figure is a simplification of the tree presented by Krause et al. (2010) and those of Meyer et al. (2014) and Sawyer et al. (2015). The earliest bifurcation in the tree is between a branch that includes Denisovans and a branch that splits into Homo sapi- ens sapiens (Hss) and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Hsn). As a conse- quence the branch leading to Hss/Hsn is designated Hs for H. sapiens. In comparison, studies of nuclear DNA, Fig. 2, place Denisovans as the sister taxon of Neanderthals (Reich et al., 2010; Meyer et al., 2012; Sawyer et al., 2015). The effect of this discrepancy vis-à-vis the mtDNA tree is apparent in that Hsnn and Hsnd (d for Denisova) join on a common branch, Hsn, as the sister group of Hss. It should be noted that the length of the Hs branch leading to the split between Hss and Hsn remains unknown in the absence of a molecularly definable sister group of that branch. Regarding the phylogenetic incongruity that may occur in analysis of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA it is noteworthy that as long as 25 years ago Pickford (1991) drew attention to this circumstance, with particular reference to OOAH.
Discussion The availability of sequences of ancient DNA, both mitochondrial and nuclear, from Neanderthals and Denisovans and progress in Homo palaeontology allow examination of OOAH in a manner that could not have been envisaged in the 1980's. Thus, when OOAH became accepted, the Homo/Pan calibration point was commonly placed at 4.5–5 MYBP. This age became significantly revised, however, with the description of Orrorin tugenensis (Senut et al., 2001) and Sahelanthropus tchadensis (Brunet et al., 2002), two fossils that in an instant required moving the Pan/Homo split to N7 MYBP. The time of divergence between Artiodactyla (as represented by ru- minants) and Cetacea (whales) set at 60 MYBP (Arnason and Gullberg, 1996; Ursing and Arnason, 1998) has become the primary molecular standard (A/C-60) for calculating evolutionary divergences among mammals in cases where the fossil record is inconclusive. A/C-60 was examined critically by van Tuinen and Hadly (2004) and shown to outperform other mammalian standards of this kind. Application of A/C-60 to the sequences of complete mtDNA molecules places the Pan/Homo diver- gence at ≥ 7.5 MYBP and the deepest divergences among recent humans at ≈1/30 of this time, i.e. at ≥250,000 YBP (Arnason et al., 2008). This dating is somewhat earlier than most other estimates of this divergence, a circumstance that may be related to differences in the applied ap- proaches, not least the dating allocated to the divergence between Pan and Homo, which is still placed at ≈6.5 MYBP by some authors despite its conflict with established palaeontology. The 250,000 YBP estimate is consistent with the marked progressive Palaeolithic exploitation of small animals in the Levant ≥ 200,000 YBP (Stiner et al., 1999) as a consequence of enduring human presence and faunal exploitation outside Africa. A much earlier and enduring presence of advanced Homo in the Levant (e. g. Acheulian Technocomplex) has also been documented archaeologically (Goren-Inbar et al., 2000; Goren-Inbar, 2011). Based on analysis of the first complete Denisovan mtDNA, Krause et al. (2010) concluded that Denisova derived from a migration out of Africa ≈1 MYBP, followed by an exodus of early Neanderthals (also out of Africa) between 500,000 and 300,000 YBP and the ancestors of non-African modern humans ≈50,000 YBP. The study did not clarify how finds in the Altai Mountains (Denisova Cave) could indicate migra- tion out of Africa 1 MY earlier. Similarly, the exclusive location of Nean- derthal fossils in Eurasia is problematic for the traditional OOAH. Hublin (2009) referred to that crucial Neanderthal issue in the following manner: “... none have been documented in North Africa”. It should be borne in mind that Krause et al. (2010), at the time of the publication of their study, were incognizant of the phylogenetic discrepancy between the nuclear and mitochondrial DNA of Denisova mentioned above. They could therefore not examine the Neanderthal/ Denisova relationship in a perspective that otherwise had made it difficult to reconcile OOAH with the absence of Neanderthals in Africa. Martinón- Torres et al. (2011) examined the study of Krause et al. (2010) from a palaeontological/archaeological point of view and expressed reservations regarding the latter's conclusions that Denisovans and Neanderthals de- rived from migrations out of Africa. Groucutt et al. (2015) addressed OOAH in a recent study by simulat- ing different OOAH scenarios. The authors maintained that current genetic, palaeontological and archaeological data indicated that Hss had originated in Africa and dispersed from that continent. The authors expressed, however, a particular qualification regarding this view, viz.: “Future fossil discoveries in Southern Asia have the potential to radically transform our understanding of that dispersal” (i.e. OOAH). This reser- vation became actualized most recently at the palaeontological descrip- tion of a collection of human teeth, with an age of 80,000–120,000 years, in Hunan Province, southern China (Liu et al., 2015) and soon thereafter by the demonstration of hominin presence in Sulawesi from N200,000 YBP until ≈100,000 YBP (van den Bergh et al., 2016). The basal mtDNA relationship of recent humans that Cann et al. (1987) obtained by midpoint-rooting has been recovered in virtually.
But more astonishing is South African Component in Arabia and the Harrapan Valley!!!!!!! WOW! Africans in the Harrapan Valley!!! Where did I hear that before?
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Gene appears to be a field recognized organ.
AncientNews.net articles on published papers remain fringe in my estimation. Go visit it.
The Árnason paper is a personal effort and out of his field (brain surgery). No team of 'population' scientists involved. Also, to date, per Science Direct.com no other papers cite it.
I have nothing against Arnason publishing papers in genetics I publish papers in genetics too. But the idea of Khoisan originating in Eurasia is strange
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Gene appears to be a field recognized organ.
AncientNews.net articles on published papers remain fringe in my estimation. Go visit it.
The Árnason paper is a personal effort and out of his field (brain surgery). No team of 'population' scientists involved. Also, to date, per Science Direct.com no other papers cite it.
I have nothing against Arnason publishing papers in genetics I publish papers in genetics too. But the idea of Khoisan originating in Eurasia is strange
How does a brain surgeon get to publish a bio-anthropology article in a peer reviewed genetics journal?
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
Strange to say the least.
To each his own but to me relying on a professional for something out of their expertise is classic Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) logical fallacy: irrelevant authorities, poor authorities, or false authorities.
But geneticist Ulfur Arnason of the University of Lund in Sweden thinks that the ape-monkey split is poorly recorded in fossils and probably occurred twice as long ago, about 50 million years ago. --
Tukuler
multidisciplinary Black Scholar
Member # 19944
posted
A phylogenetic view of the Out of Asia/Eurasia and Out of Africa hypotheses in the light of recent molecular and palaeontological finds. Review article Árnason Ú. Gene. 2017. Authors Árnason Ú1. Author information 1 Department of Brain Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Lund, Lund, Sweden. Electronic address: ulfur.arnason@med.lu.se. Citation Gene. 2017 Sep 5;627:473-476. doi: 10.1016/j.gene.2017.07.006. Epub 2017 Jul 5.
posted
76 year old brain surgeon Ulfur Árnason age became an emeritus professor in 2005, as Swedish researchers do. Typically, such professors are permitted a university office if they continue research, as Árnason does. He has been involved in the the Institute of Genetics at Sweden's Lund University since the 70s and has been publishing as author and co-autor in genetics journals since then
ARNASON U., GULLBERG A., JANKE A., XU X., 1996: Pattern and timing of evolutionary divergences among hominoids based on analyses of complete mtDNA's. J. of Molecular Evolution 43: 650–661. ARNASON U., GULLBERG A., JANKE A., 1998: Molecular timing of primate divergences as estimated by two non-primate calibration points. J. of Molecular Evolution 47: 718–727. ARNASON U., GULLBERG A., SCHWEIZER BURGUETE A., JANKE A., 2000: Molecular estimates of primate divergences and new hypotheses for primate dispersal and the origin of modern humans. Hereditas 133: 217–228.
_______________________
Is he in the high profile circle of genetics researchers, though ? No but he has been writing peer reviewed articles in journals for a long time. Notably the topic article has no co-authors
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Tukuler: Gene appears to be a field recognized organ.
AncientNews.net articles on published papers remain fringe in my estimation. Go visit it.
The Árnason paper is a personal effort and out of his field (brain surgery). No team of 'population' scientists involved. Also, to date, per Science Direct.com no other papers cite it.
I have nothing against Arnason publishing papers in genetics I publish papers in genetics too. But the idea of Khoisan originating in Eurasia is strange
How does a brian surgeon get to publish a bio-anthropology article in a peer reviewed genetics journal?
He got his article published the same way I get mine published. You study how the geneticist write their papers then you write your paper the same way and it will survive peer review
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
Dr. Winters, earlier I had posted about West African Lusu people discovered by Portuguese navigatoer Fernando Poo in 1560's, now I find that the name is Susu. In Old Susu, their word for 'woman' is Guinea. I think this was mistranslated as 'black' by Europeans. The Susu are Mande speakers. Do you have any data to compare the (ancient) words for black & woman in Mande? I'd be very interested. At Sci.lang, I was told that Guinea only means black, as in Berber, which I strongly dispute, despite its later usage by European Conquerors. Sorry if Off topic.
Dr. Winters, earlier I had posted about West African Lusu people discovered by Portuguese navigatoer Fernando Poo in 1560's, now I find that the name is Susu. In Old Susu, their word for 'woman' is Guinea. I think this was mistranslated as 'black' by Europeans. The Susu are Mande speakers. Do you have any data to compare the (ancient) words for black & woman in Mande? I'd be very interested. At Sci.lang, I was told that Guinea only means black, as in Berber, which I strongly dispute, despite its later usage by European Conquerors. Sorry if Off topic.
My research has mainly been concerned with Malinke-Bambara, but I will see what I can find in relation to Susu
-------------------- C. A. Winters Posts: 13012 | From: Chicago | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
You and I are the only ones who know who Ali Muhammad is. Ali Muhammad saw the article on the Asia origin hypothesis and is trying to play like this is some big movement on anthropology but it's not, it's one lone brain surgeon's theory who is going dolo with his side genetics research.
Posts: 42919 | From: , | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
This looks interesting but I dont have 3 hours. Can i get a synopsis of what they are arguing about?
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^ Its not much of a debate. In my opinion, Dr Ali Muhammad is driven to idiocy by the fear of death which leads to the a to validate the Abraham religion which would in turn give him an afterlife. He makes all the logical fallacies of the creationist combined with signature African American servile-ignorance. His rhetoric is wet with the speech of black 'liberation' but the meat of his argument is that of a white supremacist.
He said Out of Africa is bogus. He blames Jews for the rise of Afrocentrism He says that John Henrick Clarke was funded by Jews Africa was named after a white woman. Black people are not smart enough to check mainstream science. And he also argues that Homo-Sapiens bred with Neanderthals so that means white people are older. In the past he argued that the presence of A00 in America is proof that we were in America first.
Its not so much of a debate as it is an attempt to expose Dr Ali Muhammad's BS.
Posts: 1254 | From: howdy | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: ^^ Its not much of a debate. In my opinion, Dr Ali Muhammad is driven to idiocy by the fear of death which leads to the a to validate the Abraham religion which would in turn give him an afterlife. He makes all the logical fallacies of the creationist combined with signature African American servile-ignorance. His rhetoric is wet with the speech of black 'liberation' but the meat of his argument is that of a white supremacist.
He said Out of Africa is bogus. He blames Jews for the rise of Afrocentrism He says that John Henrick Clarke was funded by Jews Africa was named after a white woman. Black people are not smart enough to check mainstream science. And he also argues that Homo-Sapiens bred with Neanderthals so that means white people are older. In the past he argued that the presence of A00 in America is proof that we were in America first.
Its not so much of a debate as it is an attempt to expose Dr Ali Muhammad's BS.
All these argument by themselves are the problem, if being tested and confirmed objectively by doing field research. The problem however is that most of these debaters they do not do any field research. Unlike let's say Anti Diop used to do.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Fourty2Tribes: ^^ Its not much of a debate. In my opinion, Dr Ali Muhammad is driven to idiocy by the fear of death which leads to the a to validate the Abraham religion which would in turn give him an afterlife. He makes all the logical fallacies of the creationist combined with signature African American servile-ignorance. His rhetoric is wet with the speech of black 'liberation' but the meat of his argument is that of a white supremacist.
He said Out of Africa is bogus. He blames Jews for the rise of Afrocentrism He says that John Henrick Clarke was funded by Jews Africa was named after a white woman. Black people are not smart enough to check mainstream science. And he also argues that Homo-Sapiens bred with Neanderthals so that means white people are older. In the past he argued that the presence of A00 in America is proof that we were in America first.
Its not so much of a debate as it is an attempt to expose Dr Ali Muhammad's BS.
All these argument by themselves are the problem, if being tested and confirmed objectively by doing field research. The problem however is that most of these debaters they do not do any field research. Unlike let's say Anti Diop used to do.
They dont need to do field research. They dont have the resources to do field research. The problem is some of these ideas are faith based and have no scientific basis....ignoring science and testable evidence all together. The first 10 minutes is just a slaughter. The first hour is just more of a slaughter with the Aboriginal guy basically projecting all his inferiority complexes onto his opponent.
Posts: 2463 | From: New Jersey USA | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beyoku, Field research is critical because it shows first hand discoveries, instead of relying on what someone else is claiming for good or worse.
And yes, they lack resources, so this means there is a challenge to created conditions to make those resources a reality!
Not having resources have been one of the biggest problems for Black society aka science.
And to be honest, I didn’t look at the video. I responded to the title and the nutshell explanation.
Posts: 22234 | From: האם אינכם כילדי הכרית אלי בני ישראל | Registered: Nov 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clyde Winters: “A new paper published by Professor Úlfur Árnason, a neuroscientist at the University of Lund in Sweden, places the last common ancestor of Homo sapiens sapiens and Neanderthals somewhere in Eurasia. Árnason argues that the ancestors of the African KhoeSan and Mbuti populations formed the first exodus of Homo sapiens sapiens into Africa from Asia and Europe. It is commonly held that the original members of the Homo sapiens species, lived somewhere in Africa and that Homo sapiens sapiens emerged first on the same continent. The majority of scientists believe that only the exact dating of the emergence of our sub-species remains to be resolved. Not so fast, says Professor Árnason, his research suggests that the origination of the Homo sapiens sapiens sub-species was a Eurasian affair. Scientific research suggests that Neanderthals and modern humans parted ways, genetically, sometime earlier than 500,000 years ago. Árnason argues that this date, along with what is known of Neanderthal geographic range, places the first of our own sub-species somewhere in Eurasia.” http://ancientnews.net/2017/09/16/the-out-of-europeasia-into-africa-theory-of-human-origins-new-paper-calls-for-paradigm-displacement/
Eurocentrists have begun a full assault on promoting the idea that anatomically modern humans originated in Europe and migrated into Africa. There is no archaeological evidence supporting this imagined migration, so they are using population statistical genetics models to support this claim.
Interesting paper. It is just another paper aimed at promoting the idea that homo sapien sapiens originated in Eurasia .
Árnason is using statistical genetic models to argue that the ancestors of the African Khoisan and Mbuti populations formed the first exodus of Homo sapiens sapiens into Africa from Asia and Europe. This would be a joke but the paper was published in a mainstream journal. It would be considered a joke because the Khoisan originated in South Africa And the archaeological evidence supports their migration from South Africa up through North Africa into Iberia were they introduced the Aurignacian and Solutrean cultures.
Again, nothing new under the sun. Ever since the advent of the Out-Of-Africa theory there have been those who are trying to promote an Out-Of-Eurasia theory even though such evidence is on shaky grounds. These experts pretty much rely on a "muddying of the waters" tactic when assessing skeletal and especially genetic evidence. So the earliest AM Humans found in Africa are either evidence of a back-migration OR are not true Sapiens sapiens.
I think the biggest weapon for or against these claims may come in the form of Hofmeyr Man's DNA. Recall that Hofmeyr is an approx. 36KY old skull found in South Africa.
What's really interesting about the skull is that it bore a closer resemblance to contemporary Eurasians such as European Cromagnon than it does to Sub-Saharans. Thus Hofmeyr is being held as proof of OOA. They have already begun the process of trying to collect DNA from a piece of parietal bone. I can only imagine what the results, if any, might be.
Meanwhile, the other clue that is as much a piece of the puzzle is the Nazlet Khater skull of Egypt.
This is the paradox that Euronuts seem to avoid: Nazlet Khater is contemporary to Hofmeyr. And while Hofmeyr lived all the way in South Africa his features align him with Eurasians yet Nazlet Khater who resided in Egypt possessed features that aligned him more closely with Sub-Saharans i.e. both "Negroids" and "Capoids" (Khoisans). Yet I have yet to hear about any DNA analysis done on Nazlet Khater the earliest known modern human Egyptian.
-------------------- Mahirap gisingin ang nagtutulog-tulugan. Posts: 26238 | From: Atlanta, Georgia, USA | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic