Ice age.

/thread

>>244632
Wouldn't humans freeze to death trying to cross vast amounts of ice.

>>244640

No.

/thread
This is /sci/ bullshit. Go troll elsewhere.

>>244643
Proof?

>>244627
They walked.

There were many 'land bridges' back then, that are now covered in water.

>>244627

Out Of Africa is only one theory for human origin. If Mungo Man's as old as it's said to be, multiple-origin humanity might be correct. It'd mean, at the least, that Australian aborigines were anatomically modern seventy thousand years ago, which would make them not homo sapiens, but an entirely new species, maybe a direct descendant of a population of homo erectus that got stuck there.

It'd explain why they look so different from any other human race.

The out of Africa theory is just a THEORY, Jesus Christ.

It's not correct and there's evidence that it's not correct.

Humans were new then, so aliens would pick them up for free anal probing. Then they would just drop them off wherever.

>>244679

I've not heard any plausible alternative theories, care to expound a few? Out of Africa seems to have pretty much universal scientific support.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070509161829.htm
http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/science/out-africa-theory-correct-$1083087.htm

>>244741
Chinese Challenge to "out of Africa" theory.

The discovery of an early human fossil in southern China may challenge the commonly held idea that modern humans originated out of Africa.

Jin Changzhu and colleagues of the Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Palaeoanthropology in Beijing, announced to Chinese media last week that they have uncovered a 110,000-year-old putative Homo sapiens jawbone from a cave in southern China's Guangxi province.

The mandible has a protruding chin like that of Homo sapiens, but the thickness of the jaw is indicative of more primitive hominins, suggesting that the fossil could derive from interbreeding.

If confirmed, the finding would lend support to the "multiregional hypothesis". This says that modern humans descend from Homo sapiens coming out of Africa who then interbred with more primitive humans on other continents. In contrast, the prevailing "out of Africa" hypothesis holds that modern humans are the direct descendants of people who spread out of Africa to other continents around 100,000 years ago.

The study will appear in Chinese Science Bulletin later this month.
Out of China?

>>244741
"[This paper] acts to reject the theory that modern humans are of uniquely African origin and supports the notion that emerging African populations mixed with natives they encountered," says Milford Wolpoff, a proponent of the multiregional hypothesis at the University of Michigan.

Others disagreed. Erik Trinkaus, an anthropologist at Washington University in St Louis, Missouri, questioned whether the find was a true Homo sapiens.

"You need to keep in mind that 'Homo sapiens' for most Chinese scholars is not limited to anatomically modern humans," he says. "For many of them, it is all 'post Homo erectus,' humans."

Chris Stringer of London's Natural History Museum said that it was too early to make far-reaching conclusions. "From the parts preserved, this fossil could just as likely be related to preceding archaic humans, or even to the Neanderthals, who at times seem to have extended their range towards China."

The present analysis of the mandible focused almost exclusively on determining the fossil's age. The researchers said a follow-up study would give a more complete treatment on what exactly the find represents.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18093-chinese-challenge-to-out-of-africa-theory.html

Pangea.

>>244741
The founding myth of liberalism is the One world, One Race, Out of Africa Theory.

It has now been demolished.

Now scientists will have to announce that the ancestors of all modern humans evolved in Europe - and then next they will have to announce in a few years time that these Dmanisi hominids are the ancestors of all modern humans which means that though Homo Sapiens evolved in Africa, Europe and European hominids were the ancestors of all human beings - not Africa and African hominds.

Black Africans came from European Dmanisi Hominins - modern white Europeans did not evolve from Black Africans.

The ancestors of all modern humans evolved from European Dmanisi Hominds in Europe, not from African hominds in Africa.

The Homo habilis line represents the earliest known divergence from apes and the homind human / ape line first evolved from apes in Africa.

The Homo Habilis then must have left Africa and entered Europe and evolved into the Dmanisi Hominins.

>>244741
The Dmanisi Hominins then evolved into Homo Erectus.

Homo Erectus either evolved on the African continent from European Dmanisis Homins or Homo Erectus evolved in Europe from Dmanisi Homins and then left Europe for the African continent where it became Homo Sapiens.

The Homo Sapiens that evolved on the African continent from Dmanisis Hominins or Homo Erectus then left the African continent and then evolved in Europe into the Homo Sapien Cro-Magnons who are the ancestors of the White Race.

All Modern Europeans are the descendants of Homo Sapien Cro-Magnons and therefore the idea we are all one 'human race' is false.

There are many human races, not one.

The Homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens that evolved in Africa, or Europe, from Dmanisi Hominds then became the originating populations of the White and Black Race.

Black Homo Sapiens evolved from Homo Erectus who evolved from Dmanisi Hominds who evolved in Europe.

White Homo Sapiens evolved from White Cro-Magnons who evolved from Homo Sapiens who evolved from Homo Erectus who evolved from Dmanisi Hominds who evolved in Europe.

It is far more likely that Homo Erectus evolved in Eurasia than Africa and then moved to the African continent where it evolved into Homo Sapiens.

It may even be that Homo Sapiens evolved in Eurasia and then spread to Africa to become Black Homo Sapiens whilst other Homo Sapien populations moved to Northern Europe and then became White Cro-Magnons who are the ancestors of modern Europeans, which means Homo Sapiens never evolved in Africa at all but Eurasia.

>>244674

There are two theories. Out of Africa and Multiregional.
The dominant position among scientists is Out of Africa, for there is much more evidence supporting it. It's been the near-consensus view since the 1990s.

>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_African_origin_of_modern_humans
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans

>>244741

White Europeans are derived from Cro-Magnons who are derived from Homo Sapiens, they are not just Homo Sapiens.

Cro-Magnons are an offshoot of Homo Sapiens, Black Africans are Homo Sapiens.

Humanity was European before it was ever African.

The founding myth of liberalism is lost.

The entire history of humanity must be re-written.

The ancestral 'Eve' was a European not an African.

Europe gave birth to humanity, not Africa.

We now have The Out of Europe Theory.

>>244679
>just a THEORY

Anyone who says that about scientific theories is a massive idiot.

>>244741
A skull that rewrites the history of man

It has long been agreed that Africa was the sole cradle of human evolution. Then these bones were found in Georgia...

By Steve Connor, Science Editor

Wednesday, 9 September 2009


One of the skulls discovered in Georgia, which are believed to date back 1.8 million years


The conventional view of human evolution and how early man colonised the world has been thrown into doubt by a series of stunning palaeontological discoveries suggesting that Africa was not the sole cradle of humankind. Scientists have found a handful of ancient human skulls at an archaeological site two hours from the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, that suggest a Eurasian chapter in the long evolutionary story of man.


The skulls, jawbones and fragments of limb bones suggest that our ancient human ancestors migrated out of Africa far earlier than previously thought and spent a long evolutionary interlude in Eurasia – before moving back into Africa to complete the story of man.

>>244741
Experts believe fossilised bones unearthed at the medieval village of Dmanisi in the foothills of the Caucuses, and dated to about 1.8 million years ago, are the oldest indisputable remains of humans discovered outside of Africa.

But what has really excited the researchers is the discovery that these early humans (or "hominins") are far more primitive-looking than the Homo erectus humans that were, until now, believed to be the first people to migrate out of Africa about 1 million years ago.

The Dmanisi people had brains that were about 40 per cent smaller than those of Homo erectus and they were much shorter in stature than classical H. erectus skeletons, according to Professor David Lordkipanidze, general director of the Georgia National Museum. "Before our findings, the prevailing view was that humans came out of Africa almost 1 million years ago, that they already had sophisticated stone tools, and that their body anatomy was quite advanced in terms of brain capacity and limb proportions. But what we are finding is quite different," Professor Lordkipanidze said.

"The Dmanisi hominins are the earliest representatives of our own genus – Homo – outside Africa, and they represent the most primitive population of the species Homo erectus to date. They might be ancestral to all later Homo erectus populations, which would suggest a Eurasian origin of Homo erectus."

My only issue with the multi-continental spawning of the human species is that, if it where true, how come we are all fertile to each other?

If we evolved differently out of monkeys who traveled to different parts of the globe, wouldn't there been some major genetic differences, enough so that breeding wouldn't be possible?

Then again the whole humans wiped out the neanderthal might explain that.

>>244741
Speaking at the British Science Festival in Guildford, where he gave the British Council lecture, Professor Lordkipanidze raised the prospect that Homo erectus may have evolved in Eurasia from the more primitive-looking Dmanisi population and then migrated back to Africa to eventually give rise to our own species, Homo sapiens – modern man.

"The question is whether Homo erectus originated in Africa or Eurasia, and if in Eurasia, did we have vice-versa migration? This idea looked very stupid a few years ago, but today it seems not so stupid," he told the festival.

The scientists have discovered a total of five skulls and a solitary jawbone. It is clear that they had relatively small brains, almost a third of the size of modern humans. "They are quite small. Their lower limbs are very human and their upper limbs are still quite archaic and they had very primitive stone tools," Professor Lordkipanidze said. "Their brain capacity is about 600 cubic centimetres. The prevailing view before this discovery was that the humans who first left Africa had a brain size of about 1,000 cubic centimetres."

The only human fossil to predate the Dmanisi specimens are of an archaic species Homo habilis, or "handy man", found only in Africa, which used simple stone tools and lived between about 2.5 million and 1.6 million years ago.

"I'd have to say, if we'd found the Dmanisi fossils 40 years ago, they would have been classified as Homo habilis because of the small brain size. Their brow ridges are not as thick as classical Homo erectus, but their teeth are more H. erectus like," Professor Lordkipanidze said. "All these finds show that the ancestors of these people were much more primitive than we thought. I don't think that we were so lucky as to have found the first travellers out of Africa. Georgia is the cradle of the first Europeans, I would say," he told the meeting.

>>244741
"What we learnt from the Dmanisi fossils is that they are quite small – between 1.44 metres to 1.5 metres tall. What is interesting is that their lower limbs, their tibia bones, are very human-like so it seems they were very good runners," he said.

He added: "In regards to the question of which came first, enlarged brain size or bipedalism, maybe indirectly this information calls us to think that body anatomy was more important than brain size. While the Dmanisi people were almost modern in their body proportions, and were highly efficient walkers and runners, their arms moved in a different way, and their brains were tiny compared to ours.

"Nevertheless, they were sophisticated tool makers with high social and cognitive skills," he told the science festival, which is run by the British Science Association.

One of the five skulls is of a person who lost all his or her teeth during their lifetime but had still survived for many years despite being completely toothless. This suggests some kind of social organisation based on mutual care, Professor Lordkipanidze said.

Leggong had early humans 1.8m years ago

GEORGE TOWN: Evidence of human existence dating back 1.83 million years was uncovered at Bukit Bunuh in Lenggong, Perak recently.

Universiti Sains Malaysia Centre for Archaeological Research Malaysia director Assoc Prof Dr Mokhtar Saidin said hand-axes which were unearthed showed evidence of the early existence of Homo erectus in the South-East Asia region.

He said the previous pre-historic hand-axes found in Africa dated back 1.6 million years.

“We found one of the hand-axes, made of quartzite rock, embedded in layers of suevite caused by meteorite impact.

“We sent part of the suevite to the Japan Geochronology Lab in Tokyo for fission track dating and the results showed that it dated about 1.83 million years,” he told a press conference.

He said his team did not find any human remains.

>>244741
“Our next step is to carry out more studies and mapping and we hope to find human evidence,” he said.

Dr Mokhtar said it was possible that the findings challenged the prevailing “Out of Africa” theory, which holds that anatomically modern man first arose from one point in Africa and spread out around the globe.

He said the Bukit Bunuh archaeological site discovered in August 2000 covered about four sq km, and the meteorite crater was about 4km in diameter.

USM vice-chancellor Tan Sri Prof Dzulkifli Abdul Razak described the discovery as “important and pertinent”, which could change the understanding about the mobility of early human beings in this region.

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2009/1/29/nation/20090129172833&sec=nation

>>244750
Thanks for brining a decent point into the thread.
I can believe this more than other points.

>>244775
You fail genetics hard, didn't you?

Here's something. DId you know lions and tigers can breed with each other? It's true.

Simply put: Africa was not connected to europe until quite late in human history, so it could not be the origin. Enough said.

Well I've Never really believed in the "Out of Africa Theory" anyway.
This seems more plausible...but its a very long article. From this weeks 'New Scientist' July 1st.
START
THE archaeological excavations at Dmanisi, in the Republic of Georgia, are a glorious exception to the rule that if you are in a hole, you should stop digging. What began as the excavation of a medieval town has turned into a pivotal site for our understanding of human evolution. So far, palaeoarchaeologists working there have unearthed five ancestral human skulls and other remains: the individuals they represent are now the central characters in a story whose plot is poised to undergo a major twist.

The story is known as Out of Africa. It tells of Africa as the centre of evolutionary innovation in our ancestors, and the springboard from which some of these hominins struck out into other continents. There are two main parts to the tale. The most familiar one charts the evolution of our own species in Africa around 200,000 years ago, and the subsequent migration of these modern humans throughout the world. The less well known part of the story concerns the first migration of our ancestors out of Africa, more than 1 million years earlier. It is this part of the story that is now being challenged for the first time. Last December, Nature ran a provocative critique by Robin Dennell of the University of Sheffield, UK, and Wil Roebroeks of Leiden University, the Netherlands, that concluded: "Most probably, we are on the threshold of a profound transformation of our understanding of early hominin evolution."

The "Out of Africa 1" story begins more than 2 million years ago when small upright African apes, known as australopithecines, start evolving into large and recognisably human creatures - the first members of our own genus, Homo. Eventually one of these, Homo erectus, strikes out to conquer Eurasia. At the heart of the tale of this first transcontinental migration lies the assumption that what made us human also propelled us out across the rest of the planet. This idea has a powerful romantic appeal, suggesting that exploration and settlement are primordial and defining human instincts. H. erectus had "a typically insatiable human wanderlust", according to palaeoanthropologist Ian Tattersall of the American Museum of Natural History in New York. What enabled these beings to satisfy the urge to boldly go was their package of characteristically human traits that distinguished them from the australopithecines: longer limbs, increased body and brain size, an omnivorous diet and the use of stone tools.

Until quite recently, all the evidence seemed to support this view and version of events. The earliest remains of H. erectus in Africa are about 1.8 million years old. At first these beings seem to have produced only simple flaked stone tools, but around 1.5 million years ago these are joined in the archaeological record by teardrop-shaped hand axes, suggesting that their creators had reached a new level of sophistication. In addition, the various hominin fossils found in east Asia over the past century (see "The shifting spotlight") had been dated at a million years old at most. The timing of all this seemed to attest to the emergence of H. erectus in Africa, its growing ingenuity there and then gradual spread eastward.

>>244786

In the past decade, however, this sequence has begun to unravel. Fossils of H. erectus found at the Indonesian sites of Sangiran and Mojokerto are now believed to be over 1.5 million years old - possibly as much as 1.8 million years old. Those at Dmanisi have been dated at 1.7 million years or more. With these startlingly early dates from both ends of Asia it looks as though H. erectus materialised almost simultaneously in Africa, east Asia and a point in between. What's more, hand axes have proved to be red herrings. The stone tools associated with the migrant populations are no technological advance on the first ones to appear in the archaeological record, half a million years previously (see "Tooled up and ready to go"). As for brain size: with an adult average of about 700 cubic centimetres these colonisers had the edge on australopithecines, whose brains were under half a litre, but they were at the bottom end of the H. erectus range, and had only about half the volume of a modern human brain. It looks as though increased intelligence was not a prerequisite for migration.

>>244741 here, thanks for the wall-of-text. As it happens, I'm more a liberal than a conservative, but I have no problem with either theory being the correct one. Guess I'd need to do more research, but the evidence on both sides looks pretty slim, and I don;t really care that much either way.

A still more radical challenge to the supposed role of superior cognitive abilities in the dispersal of hominins comes from a mid-1990s fossil discovery that Dennell considers one of the most important of the past two decades. Australopithecine fossils had hitherto been found in the Great Rift Valley of eastern Africa and in the south of the continent. Then one turned up in Chad, in the middle of the continent, 2500 kilometres away from the Rift Valley. If australopithecines were able to colonise that region between 3 and 3.5 million years ago, argues Dennell, there is no reason why they should have stopped at the Red Sea. Ancient hominins would not have distinguished between Africa and Asia, and neither should we, he and Roebroeks argue. Those australopithecines in Chad date from an era when grasslands stretched from northern Africa to eastern Asia. Other animals moved freely across this landscape, so why not hominins? "If you were a herbivore that took grass seriously," Dennell remarks, "you could munch your way all across south-west Asia to northern China." He and Roebroeks suggest that we should re-imagine this vast transcontinental band of grass as a zone throughout which our ancestors also roamed. Dennell has dubbed it "Savannahstan".

The savannahs were the product of global cooling, which dried out moist woodlands, shifting the balance to grass. Over millions of years, the global climate gradually cooled, but there were also times when conditions altered quite abruptly. These shifts rearranged the fauna - species vanished, new species emerged. One of these climatic pulses occurred around 2.5 million years ago. In the Arctic, ice sheets spread. In eastern Africa, forest-adapted antelopes were replaced by those suited to savannah. New, robust australopithecines appeared, as did somewhat larger-brained hominins, Homo habilis, the first members of the Homo genus, and we also find the earliest known stone tools.

In a bold challenge to the conventional story, Dennell argues that hominins migrated out of Africa before H. erectus even evolved, and long before the dates of the oldest known hominin fossils in Asia. These first migrants were either australopithecines or H. habilis - he, like some prominent palaeoanthropologists, regards these two as much the same kind of creatures. For evidence that small stature was no obstacle to dispersal he points to the Dmanisi hominins. Not only do their brain sizes fit within the H. habilis range, evidence from a femur and a tibia, as yet unpublished, indicates that one of them may have weighed only about 54 kilograms and stood just 1.4 metres tall. Although the stature of the individuals at Sangiran and Mojokerto is unknown, hominins clearly did not need long legs to stride out of Africa.

?In a bold challenge to the conventional story, some argue that hominins migrated out of Africa before H. erectus evolved?What's more, Dennell has the makings of a story set in Savannahstan that could explain a key mystery of human evolution - what spurred the evolution of H. erectus itself. While H. habilis seems to have evolved in response to the cold snap around 2.5 million years ago, there is no such climate change in Africa coinciding with the emergence of the earliest known examples of H. erectus, around 1.8 million years ago. Nor does H. erectus have any clearly identifiable immediate predecessors. "Not for nothing has it been described as a hominin 'without an ancestor, without a clear past'," observe Dennell and Roebroeks.

Dennell's solution to the problem is beguilingly simple: perhaps we have been looking in the wrong place. "Maybe the Rift Valley was a cul-de-sac," Dennell suggests. Tongue in cheek perhaps, but the remark conveys his strong conviction that the importance of Asia has been unfairly neglected. At around the time H. erectus emerged some 1.8 million years ago, selective pressures to evolve would have been greater in Asia than in Africa, he argues. Traces of the global cooling pulse starting around 2.5 million years ago have been detected in the soils of China's Loess Plateau.

Beneath the silty loess are layers of red clay, which appear to have been blown there by westerly winds before the cooling began. Above these, the particles of loess decrease in size from north to south, indicating that they were deposited by northerly winds, the heavier particles falling to the ground first. So it appears that the winds changed when the climate cooled. This would have brought monsoons and polarised the years into seasons, with summers becoming increasingly arid over subsequent millennia, causing the grasslands to expand. Asia was the core of this process and Africa was peripheral, according to Dennell.

In this perspective the Dmanisi hominins may represent a missing link in the evolution of H. erectus, responding to climatic pressures but still retaining much in common with H. habilis. Australopithecines were adapted to open spaces in woodlands, ranging around relatively small areas, living off plants, seeds, small mammals and perhaps carcasses. As these open spaces expanded into savannah, the Dmanisi hominins would have faced pressures to evolve more human-like traits, increasing the distances over which they ranged, and turning more to animals as a source of food.

Next time just throw us a link instead of text-walling. You shitstain.

Dennell even goes so far as to suggest that the Dmanisi hominins might be ancestors of the later H. erectus in Africa. The most celebrated representative there is the 1.6-million-year-old "Turkana Boy". His tall stature, long limbs and body proportions epitomise adaptation to a hot, dry climate. In other words, African H. erectus might have Asian roots. If this is the case, Out of Africa 1 is a crucial part of the story of our own evolution, since H. erectus is generally thought to be a direct ancestor of modern humans.

?African H. erectus might have had Asian roots, adding a crucial twist to the story of our own evolution?Since Dennell and Roebroeks wrote their Nature review, American and Georgian researchers studying the Dmanisi finds have published a paper that points in a similar direction (Journal of Human Evolution, vol 50(2), p 115). Suggesting the finds be classed as Homo erectus georgicus, Philip Rightmire of Binghamton University, New York, and his colleagues conclude that Dmanisi may be "close to the stem from which H. erectus evolved". They also point to the possibility that the Dmanisi population's ancestors were H. habilis emigrants from Africa, and that the dates do not rule out the possibility that H. erectus evolved in Asia. "For me, the evidence from Dmanisi is critical," says Rightmire. "It seems to me that such a population could well be ancestral to H. erectus in Africa and also to H. erectus in the Far East." But he anticipates that rewriting the origin and dispersal of H. erectus will be a slow process. "We're not likely to see a major breakthrough immediately."

>>244775
its funny you should bring that up, interracial children tend to have higher infertility rates than other groups, do a google search for it, they don't tend to explain why they believe it occurs. but i will draw a compassion for the liger, a lion and tiger an interbreed, but the offspring is almost always infertile.

>>244814
He bumped my thread so I can't complain.

Further research that broadly chimes with Dennell and Roebroeks's arguments comes from Alan Templeton of Washington University, St Louis (Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, vol 48, p 33). By comparing clusters of DNA that vary between individuals and tend to be inherited together, geneticists can identify when particular mutations arose, and use these to map relationships within or between species. Until a few years ago, they had to rely on DNA from mitochondria or sex chromosomes, but it is now becoming possible to increase the resolution of such maps by using data from the rest of the genome. Comparing 25 DNA regions in the genomes of people from across the world, Templeton found evidence for an expansion out of Africa around 1.9 million years ago, and that gene flow between African and Eurasian populations - in both directions - was established by 1.5 million years ago. Not only do these findings suggest that migration began earlier than previously thought, it also looks as though hominins were moving back and forth between Eurasia and Africa.

"The hypotheses Dennell and Roebroeks present are testable with molecular genetic data," Templeton says, "so I think that the prospects for testing some of their alternatives to 'Out of Africa 1' will be excellent in the near future." Only four years ago, when he first conducted an analysis of this kind, there were insufficient results for him to detect any expansion out of Africa between 1 and 3 million years ago. Increasingly, however, researchers looking for genetic variation among individuals are also recording their geographical origins - just the information Templeton needs to do his analysis. "I anticipate greater and greater statistical resolution of these older events in human evolutionary history," he says. "Genetics will play an increasing and important role in testing their ideas in conjunction with new fossil and archaeological discoveries."

>>244771
except skulls are poor sources for mapping human migration and origin. Human anatomy is under strong selection depending on climate, so that doesn't really hold up

For Dennell, however, the objects in the ground are what matters. He is keen to look for hominin remains in Asia to balance the generous legacies of the Rift Valley and southern Africa. Unfortunately, the countries he most wants to search - Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan - read like a list of places not to visit these days. A site in Pakistan where he found stone tools in the 1980s dating from 1.9 million years ago is also now off limits because of the political turbulence that has spread across the region. It seems that Asia will not give up its secrets easily, but Dennell is convinced that in this case, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The search may prove difficult but the rewards are potentially enormous, amounting to nothing less than the rewriting of human prehistory.

From issue 2558 of New Scientist magazine, 01 July 2006, page 34

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showthreaded&Number=7574

White Europeans found in Europe 200,000 years earlier than expected.

A view of the mountains in the Herault Valley. Experts on prehistoric man are rethinking their dates after a find in a southern French valley that suggests our ancestors may have reached Europe 1.57 million years ago: 200,000 earlier than we thought. What provoked the recount was a pile of fossilised bones and teeth uncovered 15 years ago by local man Jean Rouvier in the Herault Valley, Languedoc.

What provoked the recount was a pile of fossilised bones and teeth uncovered 15 years ago by local man Jean Rouvier in a basalt quarry at Lezignan la Cebe, in the Herault valley, Languedoc.
In the summer of 2008, Rouvier mentioned his find to Jerome Ivorra, an archaeological researcher at France's National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS).
The subsequent dig uncovered a large variety of ancient animal bones: cattle, deer, horses and also of carnivorous animals related to cats and dogs.
More importantly however, about 10 metres (yards) down and under the basalt layer, the team found 20 or so tools, most of which bore traces of use.
The surprise came when argon dating showed the site went back 1.57 million years -- substantially older than many other prehistoric sites -- according to a paper published in the specialist journal, Comptes Rendus Palevol.
It is older, for example, than the Spanish site at Atapuerca, which dates back a mere 1.2 to 1.1 million years.

And as the paper pointed out, the existence of such man-made objects in Europe was extremely rare in this period.
In comparison, the first such tools in East Africa date back to 2.5 million years ago, while human settlements in the Transcaucasia region date back to a 1.8 million years ago.
"A discovery as rich as the one in the Herault Valley offers a real opportunity to better understand the Europe of this period," said a statement from the CNRS, France's Museum of National History and the College de France.
More digs were planned for 2010 to discover more about the site, the statement added. This may rewrite the theory that all humans descended from the African continaniet.

http://www.physorg.com/news180110953.html?

Race exists.

Liberals are destroying science to push their bullshit agenda that goes agianst unbiased scientific statistics and data and since underaged b& brainwashed by liberal media and liberal education (HURRRDURRR EVERYONE IS EQUAL), hipsters, faggots defying their parents as an angsty bullshit act of "rebellion, and atheist teens are all liberals, they don't mind it or try to justify it.

There is a difference and some races really are just plain inferior, i.e. niggers

The only people in the entire world who matter and count as human beings are

Whites

EAST Asians (No other Asians, at all.)

Indians (There are acutally FOUR races, you dumbass niggers. Peoples native to the Americas are part of this race. They are the New World peoples)

Semites (Jews, Arabs, Egyptians, ect.)

No niggers allowed.

And now you know why the out of Africa theory is just a THEORY.


Fuck off, shitskins and libtards.

>>244674
>multiple-origin humanity might be correct

Do you realize that multi-origin humanity would entail two distinct species evolving in a way that would later allow them to interbreed?

IE:

Pre-human species A -> "Human" A
Pre-human species B -> "Human" B
--> Humans A and B are genetically close enough to interbreed

While technically not entirely impossible, this an extremely unlikely scenario.

Furthermore, even if we assume this happened... It would still mean that at some point in the past, pre-humans A and B had a common ancestor. In other words, it merely shifts the actual - still single - origin further into the past. Nothing more.

>>244770
Theory-
Definition: hypothesis, belief
Antonyms: certainty, fact, proof, reality

The Law of Identity: A theory is a theory is a theory.

Ironically multiple origin is mostly sponsored by Chinese scholars trying to claim that Chinese are a different race of humans...

>>244864
Any theory that supports nigger inferiority is a good one.

The out of Africa theory ironically supports that. Underevolved subhumans are underevolved.

>>244864
For the sole purpose of being able to justify a Third World War and genocide of all non-Han Chinese.

>>244860
jesus niggerfucking christ
Theory is a placeholder for "LOTS OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THIS NOTION"

hence the out of africa theory has A LOT OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR IT

IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS GUESSWORK

The Out of Africa theory indicates that the smart blacks left (us) and the dumb blacks stayed (them).

>>244840
>And now you know why the out of Africa theory is just a THEORY.

>>244856 here.

I was going to respond to your wall of text posts as well, until I got to this part.

If you're for real, kindly try to wrap your mind around the fact that English is a context sensitive language and words can mean vastly different things depending on where they are used. The "theory"'s in "scientific theory" and "just a theory" are completely different concepts. Until you understand this, enjoy your retard status.

In case of troll, avoid playing the retard role quite so hard in the future.

>>244679
>>244860

http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=theory+vs+scientific+theory

>since boats hadn't been developed yet
Ahahahahaha. This is a joke right? Boats are one of the simplest inventions known to mankind. You take a log, cut out parts of it, and swim on it across water. Across something like the Channel, this is not very difficult.

Now, if you're actually serious, I'm going to ask for you to down a bottle of antifreeze, because people as fucking retarded as you need to rot and die.

>>244870

>Doesn't understand Evolutionary Theory, and uses his misunderstanding of it and his wrong views of "over-evolved and under-evolved durr hurr" to justify his racism.

>>244900
>Implying you can get from Africa to Asia in a tiny one man boat.

>>244924
You don't need a boat at all to get from Africa to Asia. You can walk.

>>244942
Last time I checked Japan and Malaysia weren't attached to Africa.

Ughhh... niggers are so worthless it's more sad now than funny.

>>244942
I'm afraid you're being trolled, my good man. But of course, I'm going to have to second you. OP must have failed 7th grade geography.

People who got the fuck out of Africa to innovate and create civilization and didn't have to get dragged somewhere else in chains = Humans

Subsaharan niggers = subhuman = less than human = savages = inferior

It's easy for anyone to understand... well maybe not for a nigger.

>>244969
Maybe OP wasn't in a liberal geography class.

>>244953
1. Malaysia is.
2. Japan isn't exactly the full extent of what is considered "Asia".
3. Japan can be quite easily reached via small boats or rafts from Sakhalin, Russia.

>I'm told that all humans originally came from Africa and then developed differently when they were in different climates.

Whoever told you that was trolling you.

>>244627
I take it no one in here studies Anthropology or History, right?

Newsflash, bucko, boats had been developed in the Paleolithic.

In fact, the mummy of one of the men who brought metallurgy to England has been found, and he lived there during the 80 years in which Stonehenge was built. You can trace, through teeth, the mineral-content of the water a person drinks. This man was born and lived in the Swiss Alps. He crossed them, then the English channel, to land on England and with him he brought tools for smelting copper, which he tought the indiginous peoples. All of his tools were buried with him. This is also the exact same time the people of England began mining copper (with antlers, which can be still seen piled 50 feet high in the mine they dug in).

You, like everyone else who doesn't study history, aren't giving these people NEARLY enough credit for their ingenuity and ability to survive.

How do you think Australia, Indonesian Islands, Japan, etc. became colonized? Did they get magically put there by God? Or did they use boats?

Dumbass.

Niggers never advanced like other races have. They're inferior trash alright, we have over 7000 years of history to back to this.

>>244875
Jesus Christ, someone doesn't understand that evidence does not equal fact. You state it as fact when in reality it is not proven to be a fact.You label something unproven as a fact and do not accept anything else as a possibility. 2000 years ago our interpretation of evidence said the Earth was flat. Our interpretation and amount evidence has changed since then to say the Earth has a round shape. You cannot claim to say we won't find anymore Homo Sapien skulls in say North America that date back further in the past than the skulls in Africa. You might say I'm wrong but that doesn't mean I am wrong, even without evidence. Something that has not been proven is not a fact. If a theory is unproven it is not a fact, it is at the same level as UFO aliens which is also an unproven theory that is not a fact. Evidence does not change that fact that both are unproven theories that might or might not be correct.

>>245080
Define "proven fact".

>>245080
/sci/duck here


FUCKING THIS.

Kids don't fucking understand how science works. You can't go something is fact because it's commonly accepted.

Do you even know how much shit is still commonly believed today by people even tho it's wrong?

>>245105
In this sense, something that an be proven true so much that there is no other possibility of anything else.

There's actual evidence to challenge the out of Africa theory. Evolution is challenged by creationism which has never had any real evidence brought forth to support creationism.

It doesn't matter in the end. Niggers are still the most violent and high crime causing pieces of shit in the world anywhere. Their intelligence is inferior and they're ugly.

Get over it.

>>245080
You're a fucking idiot. You don't know anything about history and you're just blowing smoke.

Listen, fuck-for-brains, first off, 2000 years ago they knew the world was ROUND. In fact, the Greeks had calculated the circumference of the Earth to within 1% accuracy and even had accurately calculated the distance to the Moon. These calculations were taught in Alexandria and Greece. Furthermore, the only period in time when this wasn't known to be true was in the early Middle Ages, and even then it was only the peasantry who didn't know. Academics have ALWAYS known the world was round, this knowledge was never lost.

Furthermorre, a scientific theory is ALWAYS a theory, idiot, regardless of how much proof or evidence you obtain. A theory doesn't mean it's "unproven" or "a guess". If something is postulated as a theory it remains a theory EVEN WHEN PROVEN TRUE.

You don't know shit about science and you don't know shit about history. Go fuck off and die.

tl;dr

>>245106
Based on what you're saying, and especially what you're agreeing with, it would seem you yourself do not understand how science works.

"Facts", in a scientific context, are merely pieces of data.

> The object weighs 4.56 grams
> The distance is 7.2 meters

These are facts. Facts by themselves are useless. A framework that employs facts in order to describe natural phenomena is required in order for them to be of any use / to be able to make predictions about reality and avoid design by trail and error. This is called a scientific theory.

None of this has much to do with the topic of the thread though.

The proposition that humans developed independently in different locations is absurd for many different reasons. If nothing else, because it merely pushes the point of common origin further back and doesn't / cannot eliminate it anyway.

Common origin is the only thing that makes sense. It is consistent with ALL the evidence collected to date. NO concrete facts contradict it at this point in time.

Being critical is one thing; doubt is always acceptable. But categorically rejecting common origin in favor of some unsupported nonsense pulled out of thin air is retarded, and anything but scientific.

>>245080
where did I state in my post that out of africa is fact

I said there is A LOT OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

IN FACT THERE IS SUCH A STRONG BOARD OF EVIDENCE, THAT IT IS TAKEN AS THE NEXT-BEST APPROXIMATION TO THE TRUTH
All you are doing is arguing over fucking semantics

go die in a fire

>>245125
>something that an be proven true so much that there is no other possibility of anything else

Then "I think, therefore I am" is the ONLY thing that is fact. Even gravity doesn't satisfy that definition.

And, consequently, your demand for something to be "proven fact" before accepting it is unreasonable. And that's putting it VERY lightly.

>>245198

Re: >>244766

>>244766
Yeah, the multiregional therry is just atrocious nonsense. It's so thoroughly proven wrong that it's hardly even worth discussing anymore.

The only people who cling to that shit are modern racists who are so psychotic they dont' even want their ancestors to have originated on the same continent as black people.

It's pathetic, and unscientific, to the extreme.

>>245148
>Furthermorre, a scientific theory is ALWAYS a theory, idiot,
No shit, that is what I have been saying. Law of Identity, a theory is a theory. It is what it is, a guess is a guess. If I look at a coin and see two possibilities, heads and tails, and I guess tails there is two outcomes, heads and tails. If it is heads I'm wrong, tails I'm correct. My guess, tails may actually be what happens but it can also be heads. The same may be true for every theory it is a guess that can be either true or false. You are trying to say tails, flip the coin, ignore the result and say tails was the right guess.
>A theory doesn't mean it's "unproven" or "a guess".
Then why not call this a Law? Face it, any theory can be wrong otherwise it would be a Law. That which can be wrong is a theory. Any theory is a theory, what is is what is.
>If something is postulated as a theory it remains a theory EVEN WHEN PROVEN TRUE.
No, it becomes a Law. The theory of Gravity was so universally true to our perception that anyone that perceives cannot deny they perceive it. The only true defense of Gravity not existing is that our perceptions are not what is truly happening and thus almost nothing is true as only cogito ergo sum would hold true to us.

>>245508
>Listen, fuck-for-brains, first off, 2000 years ago they knew the world was ROUND.
Once again how do you state it as fact when you cannot say they knew it as fact? Just because Greeks wrote something awful close to the truth repeatedly doesn't mean they accepted it as a truth instead of a theory.
>calculated the circumference of the Earth to within 1% accuracy
So, their theory was inherently false? This only shows their theories were not correct. If they calculated it exactly 100% true their theory would be correct. Yet they lacked all the evidence and their theory of Earth's circumference was not factually true.
>These calculations were taught in Alexandria and Greece. Furthermore, the only period in time when this wasn't known to be true was in the early Middle Ages, and even then it was only the peasantry who didn't know.
So you don't have any evidence that people before or after the Greeks thought the Earth was flat so no one else believed it? Not true, for example go Google and search for "flat earth society"; some in the Modern Day believe it so this statement is factually false.
>Academics have ALWAYS known the world was round, this knowledge was never lost.
So once again, so you lack evidence that the flat earth wasn't taught by scholars it must not have have occurred. So I guess the first human teacher inherently guessed correctly that the Earth was round and that ever since that first human teacher, the theory was taught. For if not, your remark of always is not true.


Latter, I'm not wasting anymore of my time if someone can't see that a theory is not a fact.

>>245508
Such. An idiot.

A theory NEVER becomes a law, you fucking half-wit. Jesus goddamn christ you are fucking stupid.

Goddamn, do you not realize this shit? Do you just not know ANYTHING about science? You are not, at all, allowed to have an opinion on any scientific matter you bumbling fucktard.

Here, let me lay it out for your puny puny puny brain:

Scientific laws are similar to scientific theories in that they are principles that can be used to predict the behavior of the natural world. Both scientific laws and scientific theories are typically well-supported by observations and/or experimental evidence. Usually scientific laws refer to rules for how nature will behave under certain conditions.[9] Scientific theories are more overarching explanations of how nature works and why it exhibits certain characteristics.

A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law.
Goddamn you are FUCKING STUPID.

>>245513

Sweet Christ you are beyond the pale in stupidty. They knew the world was round, they simply lacked the measuring ability to precisely discern its circumference.

And if you want the "proof" then you need to first graduate high school and then spend years of your life studying history and astronomy. You're so ignorant it's stunning.