PDA

View Full Version : Origins of Humans


Sam L
Aug 20th, 2006, 05:19 AM
Where do you think the first homo sapiens came from?

There are two hypotheses:

The Out of Africa Hypothesis According to the Out of Africa hypothesis, also known as the Replacement hypothesis, the transition to modern humanity occurred in only one area, which is consistent with the idea that new species usually arise from small, geographically isolated populations. Furthermore, modern anatomical traits evolved relatively recently, within the past 200,000 years or so. Modern-looking populations expanded and divided within Africa, and then they spread to other areas of the world. During this process, populations of migrating modern humans replaced archaic human populations, including the Neanderthals and any surviving groups of H. erectus.


The Multiregional Hypothesis According to the Multiregional hypothesis, also known as the Continuity hypothesis, the evolution of modern humans began when Homo erectus spread throughout much of Eurasia around 1 million years ago. Regional populations retained unique anatomical features for hundreds of thousands of years, but they also mated with populations from neighboring regions, exchanging inheritable traits with each other. This exchange of inheritable traits takes place by the process known as gene flow.

Through gene flow, populations of H. erectus passed on a variety of increasingly modern characteristics, such as increases in brain size, across their geographic range. Gradually this would have resulted in the evolution of more modern looking humans throughout Africa and Eurasia. The physical differences among people today, then, would result from hundreds of thousands of years of regional evolution. This is the concept of continuity. For instance, modern East Asian populations have some skull features that scientists also see in H. erectus fossils from that region.

Some critics of the Multiregional hypothesis claim that it wrongly advocates a scientific belief in race and could be used to encourage racism. Supporters of the idea point out, however, that their position does not imply that modern races evolved in isolation from each other, or that racial differences justify racism. Instead, the idea holds that gene flow linked different populations together. These links allowed progressively more modern features, no matter where they arose, to spread from region to region and eventually become universal among humans.


Source: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/

Which one do you believe? Let's have a discussion on the origins on humans.

ceiling_fan
Aug 20th, 2006, 06:28 AM
first hypothesis.

i believe that the first humans were in Kenya, Africa. And spread to the rest of the world.

GrandSlam05
Aug 20th, 2006, 07:17 AM
I like the 2nd. Smart and beautiful people mated with other so the species got progressively better. The ugly and idiots were left in the dust.

tfannis
Aug 20th, 2006, 10:33 AM
Based on fossils, you have to go with the first one:

Many supporters of the multiregional hypothesis backed up their believes with the fossils found in Asia and Europe. In Eastern Asia for example they found a fossil of H. erectus of 1 million years old, a fossil of H. erectus and one of an archäic H. sapiens of 0,2 million years old and one of a modern H. sapiens of 67000 years old. So one could say you hade a gradual shift towards towards H. sapiens, which fits into the multiregional hypothesis. However, recent discoveries brought us some fossils of archaic H. sapiens of 0,35 million years old, which is a lot older than the most recent H. erectus. So supporters of the Out of Africa hypothesis say H. sapiens doesn't originate from H. erectus then, but migrated from Africa to Asia and lived on there, while H. erectus took its time to get extinct ;)
The same story in Europe, Australia and the Middle-East, all backing up the Out of Africa hypothesis.

And then there is the genetic evidence which is also largely supporting the Out of Africa hypothesis, although there is proven to be a mixture of genes throughout the world dating back to more than a million years ago, which is in favour of the multiregional hypothesis. Pro-Africa: the fact that there's a lot more gene diversity in Africa compared to the rest of the world should prove that the modern human beings originated from that continent and then spread around the world.


Based on what I have read and learned about the origin of human beings, I'd go with the Out of Africa hypothesis. :)

Funny thing is: I had two different courses on the origin of humans with two different professors and they both differed in their opinion on the matter. That proves it's still not cetrain which theory is the clear cut winner ;)

Langers
Aug 20th, 2006, 10:41 AM
This thread is just an example of why people on this site have no clue.

tfannis
Aug 20th, 2006, 11:36 AM
This thread is just an example of why people on this site have no clue.

Because Adam was created by God and Eve was a far evolved rib? :lol:

ceiling_fan
Aug 20th, 2006, 11:41 AM
This thread is just an example of why people on this site have no clue.

Explain.

I'm basing my theory only on science (fossils and tracks) from high school.

Do you expect us all to be human origin researchers or something? It's a tennis forum for gods sake.

ceiling_fan
Aug 20th, 2006, 11:43 AM
I like the 2nd. Smart and beautiful people mated with other so the species got progressively better. The ugly and idiots were left in the dust.

Is that anything to do with Darwin?

Because survival of the fittest applies to intelligence, physicality, but I wouldn't use the terms "beautiful" and "ugly", because this is what social darwinism (-al ) racism stems from.

tfannis
Aug 20th, 2006, 11:44 AM
Explain.

I'm basing my theory only on science (fossils and tracks) from high school.

Do you expect us all to be human origin researchers or something? It's a tennis forum for gods sake.

Based on his conservative posts around the board, I think he's not much into science ;)

Monica_Rules
Aug 20th, 2006, 11:49 AM
I think the first one gives a better explanation of why africans are black and why europeans are white. Or why they were 300 years ago as now some europeans are blakc and some africans are white.

tfannis
Aug 20th, 2006, 11:51 AM
I think the first one gives a better explanation of why africans are black and why europeans are white. Or why they were 300 years ago as now some europeans are blakc and some africans are white.

Both can explain why Africans are black and Europeans are white :shrug:

controlfreak
Aug 20th, 2006, 12:18 PM
I don't really know anything about the subject but I kind of prefer the 2nd hypothesis. When I look at all the different types of humans in the world today, there are so many different shapes and sizes and features, which suggests to me the theory of regional evolution. Also, the idea of homo erectus migrating around the world 1 million years ago (as opposed to 200,000) seems plausible, as much of the African continent seems relatively hostile to human life. I picture a bunch of those homo erectuses wanting to find somewhere else sooner rather than later.

GrandSlam05
Aug 20th, 2006, 03:11 PM
Is that anything to do with Darwin?

Because survival of the fittest applies to intelligence, physicality, but I wouldn't use the terms "beautiful" and "ugly", because this is what social darwinism (-al ) racism stems from.
My post was to be taken more light-hearted. I'm not that much of an asshole to go around calling people dumb and ugly. :lol: Origin of man is not really an area of science that I find that interesting. :shrug: But to answer your question yes I do believe in survival of the fittest (except for today's society because we have drugs, medical procedures, and social programs to keep the sick and weak alive so that they can procreate and pass on their genes). But in nature yes.

GrandSlam05
Aug 20th, 2006, 03:13 PM
This thread is just an example of why people on this site have no clue.
Oh please. At least we're dicussing it instead of literally believing a book that was written by men 2,000 years ago. Are you one of those who thinks the earth is only 10,000 years old? :o

Wigglytuff
Aug 20th, 2006, 03:36 PM
This thread is just an example of why people on this site have no clue.
I KNOW!!!! I COMPLETELY AGREE, i dont understand what is so hard for people to understand that the world was created in 45 minutes by a purple God. and the dinosaurs are completely made up by his evil twin the giant green rabbit that is out to enter into the souls of all humanity and make them do even and unnatural things like have sex.

its like so CLEAR. i dont understand why people cant get it!!! and the worst is when the say idiotic things like "where is the proof" "The Really Truly True Book of All Things" is all they proof anyone could need. but these people just cant accept that. all they care about is things that you can really see and touch, i dont understand why they dont accept that its all a big hoax made by the evil Giant Green Rabbit that just wants to make you hate the Purple God.

:haha: :haha: :haha:

Langers
Aug 20th, 2006, 04:20 PM
So I guess the "Big Bang" is responsible... :rolleyes:

http://www.adventurist.net/trips/bay_area_06-2004/aquarium/photos/tropical-fish.jpg

Wigglytuff
Aug 20th, 2006, 04:50 PM
So I guess the "Big Bang" is responsible... :rolleyes:

NO IT IS NOT!!!! those pretty fish developing through change and becoming better suited for their environment over a period of 4,000,000,000 years MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE!!!! THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE AT ALL TO BACK UP THAT NONSENSE. this clearly did not happen, because there are no bones, records or traces of these changes.

The Purple God made everything exactly as it is in 45 minutes. NOW, thats solid irrefutable logic and fact!

tfannis
Aug 20th, 2006, 05:19 PM
NO IT IS NOT!!!! those pretty fish developing through change and becoming better suited for their environment over a period of 4,000,000,000 years MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE!!!! THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE AT ALL TO BACK UP THAT NONSENSE. this clearly did not happen, because there are no bones, records or traces of these changes.

The Purple God made everything exactly as it is in 45 minutes. NOW, thats solid irrefutable logic and fact!

Exactly.
A long bearded man in a creative mood with a spare hour and magic fingertips is the obvious explanation for all life :secret: