Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I always found the assertions of folk moving north made them white pretty stupid.
You know, for a guy living in Africa his whole life, it really is NOT that hot here; we do get snow in some parts. More sunshine does not a black person make. I still believe in Evolution as the biblical alternative of Ham or Cain does not have any scientific credence.
Abiogenesis did not take place in one isolated spot. Multiple occurrences of this could well explain the diversity of the human genome, why folk do not want to go there beats me. The ToE has shown migration to land and back to the sea of ancient critters.
The idea of a michodonial Eve merely illustrates the diversity and the commonality of external influences on our evolution to where we are now. IF we were all descendant from a single pair whether that be Adam and Eve or the OOA model, we should all have the same looks when it comes to genitalia; that aspect varies as we look across different races. No two look alike; the variances are just too vast to assume we all are the "same". We are not.
No I do not have proof, neither do theists. This is merely my opinion based on observation in RL and what I have observed (you know, those taboo sites )
I guess we can celebrate "viva la difference" - No?
So then homosapiens first came from africa into australia and possibly became homosapiens sapiens in isolation in australia instead of Africa? Wouldn't that still be an "out-of-africa" story?
I am going to be frank - you sometimes strike me as no different in your thinking than the fundamentalists you ridicule with such ferocity.
This article does not debunk the Out-Of-Africa theory; it is an argument against it, and for Australian origins...by a guy who happens to make a living writing about the Australian Aborigines, on a website dedicated specifically to going against conventional thought. It may be right in the end, but to make the definitive proclamation at this point that Out-Of-Africa has been "debunked" strikes me as incredibly presumptive. Nonetheless you have done so (as has the author) motivated (I suspect) largely by the fact that you don't like the theory and because it doesn't ring true for you personally.
Human origin is a complex puzzle. Out-Of-Africa was, as hypothesies are, a best-guess. This article presents a different best-guess and makes an argument for its strengths and the competing theory's weaknesses. I can just about guarantee you that neither theory is the "final answer"...there are still too many unknowns.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but are you arguing that life might have come to exist on this planet by abiogenesis in more than one place, setting off two different evolutionary chains that converged to modern humans? And you are wondering why no one wants to "go there?" Is that correct, or is this a miscommunication? Because the statistical probability of such a coincidence is absurdly minuscule.
Let's start with the number of laboratory experiments that have provided organic molecules with (what we are guessing) is absolute ideal conditions for self-organization and subsequent molecular evolution such that a simple organism is produced. Experiments of this nature have been performed many, many times with a current success rate of zero. This implies that either conditions must be perfect or that even under perfect conditions molecular evolution is very unlikely. Therefore, for conditions to be ideal in more than one location and/or for a very unlikely event to occur in two or more places on the same planet has very small odds indeed. And that's just to get the ball rolling...
From the point at which simple life has come to exist, we are presented with innumerable different forms that it could take in response to evolutionary pressures (the adverse conditions that create natural selection). Your hypothesis would require that of all the infinite possibilities, separate evolutionary chains reach the exact same "final product" (i.e. humanity) with such fidelity to a single design that they are interbreedable and nearly indistinguishable. Considering the complexity of the human genome, the idea that it could develop independently on the same planet twice is absurdly (and I do mean absurdly) unlikely...
And not only that, but there is no evidence for two seperate evolutionary paths in the fossil record, which means that under your hypothesis they would not only have to originate concurrently AND reach the same "final product," but would need to do so in parallel so perfectly as to make them indistinguishable in the fossil record every single step of the way.
I'm sorry, but that simply isn't possible. When measured against a single point of origin, it just doesn't make any sense at all.
The problem with the Australia thing is migration to there and from there.
Easier to see migration via land out of Africa to all over Africa, Europe, and Asia. Later boat travel to Australia and throughout the Pacific.
Going to Australia and then from there to Europe, Australia, and Asia is more problematic.
The path of least resistance et al.
PS I am old enough to remember the out of Africa thing going back into the 60's, not the 90's. Kids today!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
